Skip to main content

Full text of "The War Myth in United States History"

See other formats

iMED mm 

li hisfo\ 

Atlantic ChristianCollege.Wilson, N. C. 

The War Myth 


United States History 




ATLANTIC Christian college 




Second Printing, 1948 
Copyright, 1946, by C. H. Hamlin. 


Chapter Page 

1. Patriotism and Peace 5 

II. The Revolutionary War 10 

III. The War of 1812 21 

IV. The War With Mexico 29 

V. The War Between the States 33 

VI. The War With Spain 40 

VII. World War I 49 

VIII. World War II 58 

Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



From 1775 to 1923 the United States Army was engag- 
ed in 110 conflicts comprising about 8,600 battles with a 
casualty list of approximately 1,280,000 men. The cas- 
ualty list for World War II was approximately 1,000,000 
men of whom over 300,000 were killed. 

America's war costs since the adoption of the Constitu- 
tion total more than the nation's entire accumulation of 
wealth since that time. Since 1789, approximately 85 per 
cent of all federal expenditures have gone for purposes 
connected with war. Wars have cost America $414,000,- 
000,000, in comparison with a total evaluation of property 
and wealth in this country of $300,000,000,000. World 
War II cost America nearly six times as much as all her 
previous wars combined. The Revolution cost $500,000,- 
000; the Civil War, for both sides, cost $14,000,000,000; 
and World War I cost $33,000,000,000. The Mexican War, 
Indian Wars, and Spanish-American War brought the 
total direct war cost by 1921 to $52,000,000,000. World 
War II cost $320,000,000,000. 

Until the beginning of the nineteenth century the study 
of history was a study of the Greeks and the Romans. It 
was a study of the ancients only. Early in the nineteenth 
century, with the rise of nationalism especially intensified 
by the French Revolution, all nations began introducing 
the study of their national history in their elementary 
schools. The object of this was to teach patriotism. All 
texts and instruction exalted the nation to show its supe- 
riority to others. Patriotism meant national propaganda. 
With the rise of democracy patriotism began to shift to 
mean the support of the group, pro-group rather than pro- 
'king. This was the cause and the result of the national 
mind-set. Patriotism came to mean international hatred, 
measured in terms of military service. This attitude to- 
ward history caused the teaching and writing of history 
to be largely national propaganda. All nations pictured 
their side as defensive. Accordingly, when a conflict arose, 



these opponents of war usually yielded to the pressure be- 
cause they thought their nation was being attacked by an 
aggressor. But a careful study of history does not war- 
rant such an idea. The following study is an attempt to 
show that in our wars there has not been the "sole inno- 
cence" of the United States as opposed to the "sole guilt" 
of our opponents. THAT ITS WARS ARE DEFENSIVE 
MYTH OF EVERY COUNTRY. This national bias 
makes it easy for the military party to predominate and 
to precipitate war. Yet warfare is not popular if meas- 
ured in terms of voluntary support of the citizenship in 
time of war. No major war of modern times could have 
been fought without the draft and high pressure propa- 

All wars are accompanied with a mass production of 
similar patriotic catch phrases. These phrases have an 
emotional appeal that arouses the emotions without in- 
forming the intellect. Often the terms "loyalty", "brav- 
ery", "courage", "cooperation", and "patriotism" are 
treated as if they are absolute virtues. Loyalty to society 
is not a question of agreeing with persons temporarily in 
office. Bravery and courage not properly directed can be 
a great vice. One can be brave and courageous in a bad 
cause. The hero is all too often a species of assassin. 
Patriotism is not a question of agreeing with majorities. 
The historian David S. Muzzey, wrote : 

All history proves that the great majority of peo- 
ple have always been wrong in their social prejudices 
and that the world's advancement has been due to the 
very small minority who have had the courage to 
combat these prejudices. 

Those killed in battle are often pictured as giving their 
lives for their country. They did not give their lives, but* 
instead, they were boys usually driven to battle by their 
respective governments and in their attempt, under com- 
pulsion, to kill their opponents they were themselves kill- 
ed. Boys make the best soldiers as they are the most 
helpless and gullible. Napoleon once said : 



Give me boys in my army rather than men. They 
are more daring they ask no questions, and will go 
anywhere and undertake anything, whereas older 
men Will not be adventurous. 

Note the similarity in the following patriotic sentiments 
expressed in various wars and on opposite sides: 

A solemn crisis is at length upon us. The issue is 
not merely of war or peace, — It is one far more 
momentous and alarming than all of these — ^the very 
existence of liberty itself — ^the continuance or the 
disastrous overthrow of the great principles of popu- 
lar rights constitutional authority and genuine lib- 
erty for which our fathers bled on the battlefield, and 
has been the pride and glory of all American hearts. 
.... We repeat, the real and vital issue before our 
country is the existence or annihilation of freedom. 
(Chicago Daily Journal, April 17, 1861.) 

H. C. Perkins, Northern Editorials on Secession, gives 
a quantity of such material while Dwight L. Dumond, 
Southern Editorials on Secession, gives the same picture 
in reverse. 

The synod of North Carolina on November 1, 1861, 
adopted the following resolution in support of the South- 
ern Confederacy: 

That the synod regards the present war on our part 
as a war of defense commending itself to our people's 
efforts, prayer and hearts as a hallowed though stern 
contest for sacred rights involving our homes and 
altars, liberty and religion, and to it we solemnly, 
prayerfully commit our persons and efforts, our ener- 
gies and property, our sons and lives. 

The Presbyterian Church of the Confederate States de- 
clared in 1861 : "The struggle is not alone for civil rights 
and property and home, but for religion, for the church, 
and the Gospel." The faculty minutes of Centenary Col- 
lege of Louisiana for October 7, 1861, reads : "Students 
have all gone to war. College suspended, and God help 
the right." 

President Thurman D. Kitchin of Wake Forest College 
said to the graduating class of 1942 : "Rejoice in the as- 
surance of victory in the spirit of Jesus." 



Hitler on December 31, 1941, said : 'The year 1942— 
and we pray to God, all of us, that it may — should bring 
the decision which will save our people and with them our 
allied nations." 

Again on December 1, 1942, Hitler said : 
Only if we exert all of our strength can we beg the 
Lord to afford us His aid, as He has done hitherto. 
We had harmed neither Britain nor France nor the 
United States ; we had made no demands which might 
have caused enemies to declare war on us. 

William Allen White in 1902 stated: 

It is the Anglo-Saxon manifest destiny to go forth in 
the world as a world conqueror. He will take posses- 
sion of all the islands of the sea. He will exterminate 
the people he cannot subjugate. That is what fate 
holds for the chosen people. 

General Douglas MacArthur writing in the Infantry 
Journal for March, 1927, stated : 

A warlike spirit, which alone can create and civilize 
a state, is absolutely essential to national defense and 
to national perpetuity. ... In a free country like 
our own .... every male brought into existence 
should be taught from infancy that the military ser- 
vice of the republic carries with it honor and distinc- 
tion, and his very life should be permeated with the 
ideal that even death itself may become a boon when 
a man dies that a nation may live and fulfill its des- 

Such a list could be extended indefinitely. 

One often hears that war is a manifestation of human 
nature and will be eliminated only through a long evolu- 
tionary process. But the same thing has been said of 
slavery, duelling, witchcraft, and many other evils now 
eliminated. Warfare is not dependent upon human na- 
ture, but upon the human point of view, and this point of 
view can be altered by education — education which is hon- 
est, which can sift the true from the false, which does not 
close its eyes to the powerful role played by economic and 
social forces in the wars of the nation. 

Whether there was another way our in these conflicts, 
whether the results aimed at were achieved, whether the 



ruin and destruction which went hand in hand with these 
conflicts could ever be balanced by material acquisitions, 
— these are questions the reader must decide for himself. 

Bernard, L. L., Wa?- and Its Causes. 
Hayes, C. J. H., Essays on Nationalism. 
Heering, G. J., The Fall of Christianity. 
Scott, J. F., The Menace of Nationalism in Education. 
Vagts, Alfred, The History of Militarism. 
Wright, Quincy, The Study of War. 



The common opinion in the United States regarding the 
American Revolution is that it was a war waged against 
Great Britain in which the American people as a whole 
rose up against the mother country in order to protect 
themselves against unjustifiable and unbearable oppres- 
sion. This is the position taken in the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence. The thirteen colonies declared themselves free 
and independent on July 2, 1776, and then on July 4, 1776, 
adopted the Declaration of Independence proclaiming to 
the world their reasons for declaring themselves free. 
Thus the Declaration of Independence was not a declara- 
tion of independence, but a publication to the world of the 
causes which led the colonies to the point of such a declara- 
tion. It was an effort to put their side before the world 
and justify it. It was written by Thomas Jefferson in the 
heat of a great emotion. Twenty-seven grievances were 
held against Great Britain to justify the course taken by 
the colonies. 

The outstanding causes of the Revolutionary War were 
the following : the expulsion of the French from Canada 
in 1763, the attempt on the part of Great Britain to en- 
force the navigation acts, the British western land policy, 
the British financial legislation regarding the colonies, the 
stamp act of 1765, the Townshend act of 1767, the Boston 
tea party of 1773, the five punitive acts of 1776, the gen- 
eral economic depression during the 70's, and religious 
conflicts. Let us examine briefly these ten causes. 

(1) After the French were defeated by Great Britain 
in 1763 and driven from Canada, the colonies did not feel 
the same need for protection by the mother country as 
formerly. The French on the north were defeated. The 
Indians gave some trouble but were not a great power to 
be dreaded. As a result, the colonies felt themselves to be 
self supporting. Georgia was an exception because as the 
youngest of the thirteen colonies it was then dependent on 



England for subsidies. Because the people of Georgia 
recognized their dependence on Great Britain for help, the 
movement for independence made slower headway in 

(2) By far the most important cause of the American 
Revolution was the effort on the part of George III to en- 
force the navigation laws of Great Britain. It was cus- 
tomary then for every mother-country to regard its colo- 
nies as trading posts. The colonies were considered neces- 
sary as the source of raw materials for the home manu- 
facturers and also as a market for the surplus manufac- 
tured goods of the home country. In harmony with this 
theory, Great Britain as early as 1651 began passing navi- 
gation acts requiring her colonies to trade only with Brit- 
ish merchants. All the export trade of the colonies had 
to be sent to Great Britain. In addition, the ships trans- 
porting these goods had to be owned by British subjects. 
The colonies were British subjects so their ship owners 
were protected as well as the ship owners of England. 

This law, however, was openly violated by the colonial 
merchants. They traded with the Dutch or with any other 
foreign nations. British officials in America were bribed 
and cooperated in this illegal trade. The leading people 
of New England at this time were merchants, and it has 
been estimated that most of these merchants handled 
smuggled goods. John Hancock, who was to become pres- 
ident of the First Continental Congress in 1774, was a 
smuggler on a great scale, and at one time was sued for 
$500,000 as penalties for smuggling. John Adams was 
his counsel.^ It was these merchants of New England and 
especially of Boston, who were among the leaders in the 
Revolution. After the close of the French and Indian War 
in 1763, English merchants and English business in gen- 
eral had to be heavily taxed in order to pay the enormous 
national debt. Accordingly, pressure was brought to bear 
on the British government to have the navigation laws 
enforced, which would give the English the colonial trade, 

lA. M. Simons, Social Forces in American History, pp. 61-62. 


thus enabling them to meet more easily the financial de- 
mands of taxation. Efforts were then made by Great 
Britain to enforce these navigation laws which had been 
openly violated for more than a century. Their legality 
had never been questioned. It was the usual policy of all 
countries of that age in dealing with their colonies. These 
navigation laws were no doubt unwise interferences with 
trade but their legality was not questioned. Besides, these 
laws did not disregard the interests of the colonies. Great 
Britain gave them a monopoly of tobacco raising, prohib- 
iting Ireland from growing it. Bounties or sums of money 
were often paid by the British Government to the colonial 
producers to encourage industry. These bounties were 
paid on indigo, tar, pitch, hemp, and many other indus- 
tries which Great Britain was attempting to establish in 
the colonies in order to keep the empire from finding it 
necessary to buy them from a foreign nation. These navi- 
gation laws aroused New England rather than the South, 
for that was the commercial section of the country. 

(3) Another cause of friction between the colonies and 
the mother country was the British land policy proclaimed 
in 1763. This policy ordered the colonial governors to 
grant no more land to settlers beyond a certain western 
border extending south from the New England States 
along the western part of New York, Pennsylvania, Vir- 
ginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. This 
line extended down just east of the mountains leaving to 
the Indians the territory west of it. This western land 
was then to be purchased from the Indians by the British. 
After that the Indians were to be sent further west and 
their original territory was to be opened to settlers as 
soon as it was purchased. This arrangement was made 
by Great Britain to avoid conflict between the Indians and 
the frontier settlers. The frontier settlers, however, ob- 
jected, preferring to drive the Indians back by more ruth- 
less methods even if it caused trouble. The western land 
speculators also did not like this policy because they could 
not sell their land until Great Britain had first pushed the 
Indians back. The royal government immediately began 



making treaties with the Indians for the purchase of their 
territory. The policy was wise and humane but the set- 
tlers and speculators were too impatient to abide by it. 
The Washington family, Patrick Henry, and many others 
were prominent in these western land speculations. A 
land lobby was kept in London by these speculators in 
their efforts to get large grants of western lands from the 
crown and then to sell it off as the country became more 
and more settled. Many colonial fortunes were made in 
this manner. 

(4) The next principal cause of trouble was the Brit- 
ish financial legislation regarding the colonies. The colo- 
nies had issued fiat money or colonial bills of credit, which 
were a form of paper money. These could not be redeem- 
ed and soon began to depreciate in value. Yet they were 
made legal tender by the colonial legislatures. Often the 
colonies would buy goods from the English merchants and 
pay them with this colonial money. The southern plant- 
ers were especially active in using it to pay their debts to 
their British creditors. The merchants of London soon 
complained of this practice. Finally, in 1764, Great Brit- 
ain prohibited all the colonies from issuing as legal tender 
these bills of credit or fiat money as such a procedure was 
considered unfair to their creditors. This, of course, 
aroused great opposition from those profiting by this cur- 
rency when paying their debts. These debts owed by the 
planters to British merchants were largely wiped out by 
the revolt of 1776. 

According to Professor Abernethy : 

It may be permissible to remark at this point that 
our historians are practically unanimous in ascribing 
purely economic motives to Virginia when they at- 
tempt to account for the revolutionary activities of 
this Anglican, aristocratic colony. . . . There was 
the matter of debts owed by Virginia planters to Brit- 
ish merchants, which were largely wiped out by the 
revolt of 76.2 

2Thomas Perkins Abernethy, Western Lands and the American Revo- 
lution, p. 364. 


(5) The popular conception today is that the Stamp 
Act of 1765 was the principal if not the sole cause of the 
American Revolution. This cause is greatly exaggerated 
as it is the easiest to understand. It has been given the 
chief place among the many causes of the conflict. The 
Stamp Act was an act passed by Great Britain requiring 
the placing on all legal documents of stamps to be sold to 
the colonies by Great Britain. The usual impression is 
that this revenue was to go to the mother country for the 
sole benefit of the crown. This impression is entirely false, 
however. The revenue from these stamps was to be used 
to pay one-third of the expense of a colonial army of about 
10,000 men to be kept here for the defense of the colonies. 
Not one penny was to go to Great Britain. Elementary 
texts speak of taxing the colonies leaving the impression 
that the money was to go to Great Britain, whereas actual- 
ly it was all to be spent for the protection of the colonies 
against possible trouble with the Indians and the French. 
This colonial army had been proposed before by the colo- 
nies. In 1739 colonial leaders under the leadership of the 
governor of Pennsylvania had proposed such an army sup- 
ported by such a tax. But at that time they had felt the 
danger of the French in Canada. After the defeat of the 
French in 1763 this danger was no longer so threatening. 
When this Stamp Act was passed in 1765 its operation was 
delayed for one year in order to give the colonies an oppor- 
tunity to agree among themselves upon some other meth- 
od of raising the money if they objected to the Stamp Act. 
The act was repealed in 1766 because of the bitter opposi- 
tion of the colonies, who disliked a tax of any sort. "No 
Taxation Without Representation" has been greatly over- 
emphasized. It is only half true, for it implies that taxa- 
tion with representation would have been accepted by the 

(6) When the colonies objected to the Stamp Act, call- 
ing it an "internal" tax. Great Britain repealed it and in 
1767 passed the Townshend Act, which provided for a 
tariff on imports to the colonies. The imported goods, 
however, were boycotted by the colonies and Great Britain 



was forced to repeal the tariff on imports in 1770. The 
amount of imported goods in the New England colonies 
alone dropped from 1,363,000 pounds in 1768 to 504,000 
pounds in 1769. After the repeal in 1770 the imports in 
1771 were doubled. Thus the boycott was a powerful 
weapon in the hands of the colonies. With it the colonies 
were in a position to enforce almost any demand they liked 
upon Great Britain. The object of this tax was to pay the 
salaries of the colonial governors and judges, making 
them independent of the colonial legislature in regard to 

(7) When the Townshend duties were repealed in 1770, 
a tax was still left on tea in order to assert the right to 
levy such a tax. In 1773, Great Britain allowed a tea com- 
pany known as the East India Company to bring over a 
large quantity of tea. This company had been given a 
monopoly of the colonial tea market. When this tea ar- 
rived in Boston, on December 16, 1773, a group of men 
entered the ship and threw overboard the cargo. Why 
was this tea destroyed? Because the leaders in this act 
were tea merchants in Boston whose trade would have to 
compete with the newly arrived tea had it been permitted 
to enter the market. The act was the destruction of pri- 
vate property on the part of the participants. The more 
moderate element in Boston wanted the tea paid for and 
the action repudiated. 

(8) As a punishment for this performance. Great Brit- 
ain passed the five punitive or coercive acts of 1774. These 
five acts were the following : close the port of Boston until 
the tea should be paid, revise the charter of Massachusetts, 
try in English courts those accused of violating English 
laws, station soldiers in Massachusetts to aid in the exe- 
cution of English law, and annex to Quebec the land be- 
tween the Ohio River and the Great Lakes. 

(9) Another cause of the Revolution often overlooked 
was the general economic depression both in Great Britain 
and the colonies following the close of the French and 
Indian War in 1763. This was felt in all industries. De- 


pressions of this sort always create political unrest and a 
desire for change in government even though the authori- 
ties in power are in no way responsible for the condition. 
This is especially true in American political history. Pres- 
idential elections have been determined by economic con- 
ditions having no direct bearing upon the issues involved. 

(10) The tenth and last cause we shall give of the 
American Revolution was the religious cause. There was 
a movement on foot to locate an Episcopal bishop in the 
colonies. At that time all the colonial clergy of the Epis- 
copal Church were governed from England by the Bishop 
of London as there was no bishop here. In 1770 there 
were about two hundred and fifty Episcopal clergy in the 
colonies, most of whom were in Virginia. The rumor of 
locating a bishop here aroused resentment in the other 
denominations who unanimously opposed the plan. But 
the most effective religious cause of the Revolution came 
from still another source. When Great Britain extended 
Quebec down between the Ohio River and the Great Lakes, 
the Catholic Church was to be made the established church 
of these regions as it was in Quebec. This greatly incens- 
ed all Protestants and "no pope no king" became one of 
the slogans of the Revolution. ^ John Adams considered 
this religious animosity "as much as any other a cause" 
of the war for independence. 

If we examine the acts of Great Britain which brought 
on the Revolution we find that they were legal. They were 
all in harmony with the spirit of the age. There was sim- 
ply a general breakdown of mercantilism. Patrick Henry 
especially talked about "rights as British subjects," but 
there were no such rights of which the colonies were be- 
ing deprived. Had they remained in England they would 
have enjoyed no privileges of which they were deprived 
by coming to America. Talk of this sort made effective 
oratory, but was false when examined. "No Taxation 
without Representation" is not a legal matter but com- 

SMary Alice Baldwin, The New England Clergy and the American 
Revolution for full accounts. 



monplace political philosophy. We have many other exam- 
ples of taxation without representation. The great ma- 
jority of people in England were then disfranchised yet 
taxed. The mistake of Great Britain was not in the pass- 
age of any illegal or unusual laws for governing the colo- 
nies, but it was in trying to rule a group of people against 
their will. Such a policy invariably invites trouble. 

Instead of thirteen units, as we usually regard the thir- 
teen colonies, there were three units differing in economic 
and political ideals. The coastal plains extending from 
New Hampshire to Pennsylvania constituted one, which 
was dominated by commercial interests. The second was 
the tidewater section from Maryland to Georgia, which 
was primarily agricultural and was dominated by the 
planters. The third unit or section was the frontier with 
extreme ideas about political democracy. The first unit 
was commercial and interested in trade and shipbuilding. 
Great mercantile families had grown up there accumulat- 
ing their wealth largely through smuggling with the West 
Indies. To them the navigation laws were especially of- 
fensive. Their chief desire was to restore the commercial 
conditions as before 1763. They bitterly opposed a with- 
drawal from the British Empire for they wanted its pro- 
tection. These merchants dominated Boston, Newport, 
New York, and Philadelphia. They were Whig in oppos- 
ing trade restrictions but Tory in opposing separation. 
They had no sympathy with the political radicalism of 
Jefferson, Henry, and such leaders. The second region 
was the tidewater region of the South. It was dominated 
by the planters, many of whom were heavily in debt to 
British creditors. They secured the passage of lax bank- 
ruptcy laws detrimental to non-resident creditors. These 
laws, however, were vetoed by the king as were the laws 
providing for colonial bills of credit. These planters felt 
themselves aristocrats. Although they opposed British 
financial policy, they likewise objected to the democracy 
of Jefferson. The third section was the frontier. This 
section had often been discriminated against by the older 
sections in matters of representation in the colonial as- 
semblies, administration of justice, and taxation. Its 


inhabitants were zealous for popular rights and had no 
economic interests to the contrary. In domestic politics 
they were out of harmony with the commercial and plant- 
er sections. Their zeal for imaginary ''rights of man" 
gave great impetus to the movement for independence. 
Henry and Jefferson were the leaders of this section and 
their point of view prevailed when the Declaration of In- 
dependence was written, the ideas of which were shocking 
to the other sections. 

These three sections reacted differently to various Brit- 
ish acts. In Georgia, the frontier people were pro-British 
because they v,^ere dependent upon Great Britain for sub- 
sidies and protection from the Indians. The frontier peo- 
ple of North Carolina were also Tory because they had a 
sharp difference with the eastern part of the state. Had 
the frontier of all the colonies had a similar sharp differ- 
ence with the coastal plains they would no doubt have 
been Tory and defeated the Revolution. The frontier of 
Virginia got possession of the state and furnished such 
leaders as Henry and Jefferson. 

The Revolution was the American phase of an English 
civil war. It was not so much a conflict between England 
and the colonies as between different classes of the Eng- 
lish people. It was a struggle between liberals and con- 
servatives. The liberals were in control in the colonies 
while the conservatives were in control in England. In 
both countries there was a large and influential minority 
group. The thirteen colonies were a part of the British 
Empire and simply seceded as the South attempted to do 
in 1860. 

The terms Whig and Tory are often misleading or 
vague when applied to this period. Many Whigs of Great 
Britain, such as Burke, Fox, and Pitt, were opposed to the 
British policy of regulating the colonies, but they were 
equally opposed to granting them independence. Many of 
the American moderates were Whig in opposing the Brit- 
ish navigation policy, but wanted to pay for the tea de- 



stroyed in Boston. Many advocated an imperial union 
to handle such questions in the future. The radicals were 
for complete home rule and g'ot control of the First Con- 
tinental Congress of 1774. There was never a general 
uprising of the whole colonial population in support of 
separation. The greatest problem of the Revolutionists 
was to keep the spirit of revolt alive. About 25,000 Amer- 
icans enlisted in the British army. 

There are many facts regarding our conduct during the 
Revolution which are not pleasant to relate. For example, 
on June 1, 1775, Congress passed a resolution disclaiming 
any intention of invading Canada. The report of this de- 
cision was widely circulated in Canada. About four weeks 
later Congress secretly made plans for the invasion of 
Canada that fall. The invasion took place in September, 
1775, but Canada drove the invaders back. (See Lecky, 
The American Revolution, page 215.) Many people sus- 
pected of being Tories were badly treated. The New York 
legislature passed a resolution that Tories should be 
"deemed guilty of treason and should suffer death." They 
were often hunted by mobs, tarred and feathered, and 
killed. American troops at times set fire to the houses of 
the people to plunder and rob. In some sections the colo- 
nists looked upon the British army with as much favor as 
upon the American army. New York alone confiscated 
$3,600,000 worth of property belonging to Tories, and all 
the states did likewise. During that entire period the 
Tories were the great sufferers.^ When Great Britain 
recognized the independence of the colonies in 1783, one 
provision of the treaty agreed to by both parties was that 
the Tories should be compensated by the states for the 
property confiscated during the conflict. The states, how- 
ever, did nothing about that provision of the treaty. 

4C. H. Van Tyne, Loyalists in the American Revolution, gives full 



Abernethy, T. P., Western Lands and the American Revolution. 
Baldwin, Mary Alice, The New England Clery and the American Rev- 

Davidson, Philip, Propaganda and the American Revolution. 
Faulkner, H. U., American Economic History, pp. 137-139. 
Hayes, C. J. H., Political and Social History of Modern Europe. Vol. 
I, ch. 10. 

Jameson, J. F., The American Revolution Considered as a Social 

Lecky, E. H., The American Revolution. 

Muzzey, D. S., The United States of America Through the Civil War. 
Vol. I, ch. 2. 

Schlesinger, A. M., New Viewpoints in American History, Ch. 7. 

Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution. 

Simons, A. M., Social Forces in American History, Ch. 6 and 7. 
Van Tyne, C. H., Loyalists in the American Revolution. 


THE WAR OF 1812 

There were two distinct causes of the war with Great 
Britain in 1812, and it is necessary to examine each sepa- 
rately. These causes were maritime rights and land hun- 

The general European upheaval from 1789 to 1815, 
known as the French Revolution, soon developed into a 
war between Great Britain and Napoleon. All Europe 
was divided into two camps, with Great Britain and Na- 
poleon as the leaders on their respective sides. Over a 
decade before 1812 Great Britain began issuing decrees 
known as Orders in Council. These Orders in Council, 
issued in the name of the king, attempted to prohibit neu- 
tral nations from shipping goods to France. In this man- 
ner, a blockade was proclaimed against France, and ships 
attempting to get through the lines were subject to cap- 
ture and confiscation. 

Napoleon issued similar decrees, known as the Berlin 
and Milan Decrees, declaring that any ships en route to 
Great Britain would be subject to capture, for France had 
also blockaded Great Britain. But as neither blockade 
could be fully enforced, they were both to a large degree 
disregarded. Both Great Britain and Napoleon were at- 
tempting to cut off each other^s trade and not primarily 
trying to disregard the rights of neutrals. All goods at- 
tempting to run these blockades were subject to capture. 

The principal losers through these captures were the 
New England traders, but they preferred losing occasion- 
al ships to joining in a war which would involve them with 
their principal customer, Great Britain. There had been 
no serious losses since 1807, five years before war was 
declared. Napoleon was then losing fast and it seemed 
evident that it would be only a short while before the 
causes of friction would be over. The flagrant disregard 
of the "rights" of neutral trade had taken place before 
1807. In 1812, the solution or end of the problem was in 
sight. In 1810, our registered tonnage in foreign trade 


was 981,019 tons, which high mark it was not to reach 
again till 1847. Our foreign trade was not injured, and 
the New England merchants who sustained the loss want- 
ed nothing done as they were making large profits from 
the conflict in Europe. They were Federalists and would 
have preferred a war with France rather than a war with 
England, because they regarded Napoleon as the real 
cause of the trouble. The Federalists were pro-British, 
while the Democrat-Republicans were pro-French. Late 
in 1811 our minister, William Pinkney, left London, and 
thus the United States was cut off from a knowledge of 
the movements in England. England was attempting to 
avoid war with America because such a war would nat- 
urally hurt her foreign trade and domestic prosperity. 
By the spring of 1812 England was ready to revoke the 
Orders in Council as soon as it could be done with dignity. 
On June 23, 1812, the orders were revoked. But this was 
five days after the War of 1812 had been declared. Eng- 
land did not know war was declared when the orders were 
revoked, and the United States did not know till a good 
while later in the season that the orders had been revoked. 

Another source of friction lay in the impressment of 
seamen and sailors. During this period Great Britain was 
hard pressed for men in her naval campaign against Na- 
poleon. Many sailors deserted English ships and came to 
America because of the higher wages paid by the owners 
of American ships. Every British warship anchoring in 
American waters would lose a good part of its crew, who 
would secure positions on American ships. Great Britain 
demanded the return of these deserters, who would often 
become naturalized American citizens. Great Britain, 
however, at that time regarded citizenship as a contract 
between citizens and government which could not be brok- 
en without the consent of both the subject and his govern- 
ment. This European custom then universal has now dis- 
appeared and one can change citizenship at will. 

When the United States refused to return these men, 
the British ships would search American vessels on the 
high seas to see if any British sailors were on board. This 

THE WAR OF 1812 


policy of impressment waned, however, after 1805, be- 
cause Napoleon had been defeated on the sea and Great 
Britain was not in such great need of sailors. Impress- 
ment was not made a cause of war until after the war had 
begun and President Madison had learned that the Orders 
in Council had been revoked. President Madison in 1812 
estimated the number of impressments at 6,057, but the 
Massachusetts legislature appointed a committee to inves- 
tigate the situation, which reported that the Madison esti- 
mate was "three or four times too large." Great Britain 
took the position that the United States was acting as a 
harbor for her deserters from the British navy and mer- 
chant ships, and that therefore the search was warranted 
as a defensive measure. 

The British Orders in Council prohibiting the trading 
of neutral powers with France, and the British impress- 
ment of fugitive sailors from English ships, were the 
maritime controversies which resulted in the War of 1812. 
Both policies on the part of Great Britain were adopted 
as necessary measures in her conflict with Napoleon. 

The New England Federalists were the people princi- 
pally concerned in the United States, but they opposed the 
war. War was declared by a vote of 79 to 49 in the House, 
and 19 to 13 in the Senate. There was open discourage- 
ment of enlistment in New England. The governors of 
Massachusetts and Connecticut refused to honor Presi- 
dent Madison's call for the militia. Henry Adams esti- 
mated that the New England bankers loaned more money 
to Great Britain than to the United States for war pur- 
poses. Of the $17,000,000 in specie in the country in 1812, 
about $10,000,000 was in the hands of the New England 
Federalists. They subscribed less than $3,000,000 to the 
United States war loan. Thus, strangely enough, the 
War of 1812 was fought in spite of the protest of those 
for whom it was presumably fought. 

But in recent years another cause of the war and the 
chief cause has been brought to light. This was land 

The United States entered the conflict at the insistence 
of the south and west, despite the opposition of the north- 


eastern states. The inland section overruled the opposi- 
tion of the maritime section. At that time there was an 
ardent expansionist sentiment along the entire western 
and southern border looking towards the annexation of 
Canada and Florida with a vaguer idea of seizing all of 
the Spanish possessions of North America. Spain then 
owned Florida. Spain and Great Britain were allies 
against Napoleon, and a war with one was looked upon 
as a war with both. The belief that the United States 
would some day annex Canada had existed continuously 
since the Revolution. Benjamin Franklin had advocated 
the buying of Canada by the United States, since we fail- 
ed to take it during the Revolution. The Continental Con- 
gress made an effort to capture Canada, but our armies 
were repulsed. Washington had objected to leaving Can- 
ada in British hands. In 1803, Morris of Pennsylvania 
wrote that at the time of the Constitutional Convention 
he knew ''that all North America must at length be annex- 
ed to us — happy indeed if the lust of dominion stop there." 
This idea, however, was a vague dream till about 1810. 

There had been friction in the northwest between the 
Americans and British. The British retained trading 
posts in the northwest after they had agreed to give them 
up by the treaty of 1783 recognizing the independence of 
the United States. The British held the northwest posts 
until 1796, when they were given up by the Jay Treaty. 
All the Indian trouble in that section was attributed to 
British propaganda inciting the Indians against the Unit- 
ed States. The Canadian traders made friends with the 
Indians to get their trade while the Americans were ag- 
gressively pushing them back from their land. The result 
was that the Indian was more friendly to the British in 
Canada than to the United States. 

The idea of annexing Canada was intensified after 1810 
because of this belief that the Indians were being turned 
against the United States by the British. The south was 
almost unanimous in its demand for the annexation of 
Florida, while the southwest was taking a lively interest 
in Mexico. This land hunger was making its appearance 

THE WAR OF 1812 


rapidly, but it was several years later that the phrase 
"manifest destiny" was to come into general use. 

President Madison and Secretary of State James Mon- 
roe were eager to annex Florida. Thomas Jefferson was 
interested in the annexation of Canada, Florida, and 
Cuba, Jefferson considered the acquisition of Canada 
only a "question of marching," with Florida and Cuba 
easy prey from Spain. The expansionists were in favor 
of declaring war while the rest of the country opposed the 

When Congress met in 1811, Henry Clay was elected 
Speaker of the House. He was leader of the war group 
known as *Var hawks." Clay was the first Speaker of the 
House of Representatives to recognize the great power he 
could exercise over legislation through his appointment 
of committees. He was the first **Czar" of the House. On 
the Foreign Relations Committee, Clay appointed Peter 
B. Porter, Chairman ; Calhoun of South Carolina ; Grundy 
of Tennessee; Harper of New Hampshire; and Desha of 
Kentucky. All of these were ardent expansionists and 
reliable war men. They represented the frontier section 
of 1812, and Clay had been chosen Speaker by the repre- 
sentatives from that section. In December, 1812, while 
on the Foreign Relations Committee, Porter said in dis- 
cussing trouble with Great Britain, "We could deprive 
her of her extensive provinces lying along our border to 
the north." Grundy and Rhea, ardent expansionists from 
Tennessee, agreed. 

R. M. Johnson of Kentucky during the same session 
made the statement, "I shall never die contented until I 
see her (Great Britain's) expulsion from North America, 
and her territories incorporated with the United States," 
and Harper of New Hampshire said in Congress : "To me, 
sir, it appears that the Author of Nature has marked our 
limits in the South by the Gulf of Mexico, and in the North 
by the regions of eternal frost." 

These statements were representative of the sentiments 
of the members in Congress from the western section. 
The Federalist Party consisted chiefly of the mercantile 


and financial interests of the coast towns. They were sol- 
idly against expansion, which would give the economic 
advantage to the western section of the country. 

The winter of 1811-1812 saw a great expansionist wave 
sweep over the west, clamoring for the annexation of Can- 
ada. Contemporary newspapers were filled with edito- 
rials demanding annexation. The cry came up from the 
entire frontier. New Hampshire to Kentucky, to expel the 
British from Canada. At a Washington's birthday dinner 
given at Lexington, Ky., on February 22, 1812, the toast 
proposed was ''Canada and our arms." Although the fron- 
tier claimed that the British were inciting the Indians 
against the United States, L. M. Hacker in "Western Land 
Hunger and the War of 1812"^ shows that the Indian 
menace was greatly exaggerated, but that land hunger 
was the real motive. 

Randolph of Virginia, who was opposed to the war, said 
in 1812 on the floor of Congress : 

"Ever since the report of the Committee on Foreign 
Relations came into the House, we have heard but one 
word — ^like the whippoorwill with but one eternal 
monotonous tune — Canada ! Canada ! Canada I"^ 

The south and southwest were interested in the annexa- 
tion of Florida and possibly Texas. To them, a war with 
Great Britain meant a war with Spain also, since the Brit- 
ish and Spain were then in alliance. 

President Madison and Secretary of State Monroe, in 
their eagerness to acquire Florida, had helped General 
George Mathews to instigate a revolution in Florida. In 
1812 General Mathews took American troops to Florida 
with the cooperation of the War Department and also the 
support of Governor Mitchell of Georgia. This territory 
was held for a year, although Congress twice refused to 
authorize the President to hold it. Finally Madison was 
forced to repudiate the act because of the opposition of 
the Federalists and the northern members of his own 

^Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. X, Pp. 363-395. 
2J. W, Pratt, The Expansionists of 1812, gives full account. 

THE WAR OF 1812 


party. Senator Crawford, of Georgia, was active in his 
support of southern expansion ; Jefferson wished to annex 
Cuba as a state, and Madison and Monroe were eager to 
annex Florida although they were not concerned with the 
annexation of Canada. 

The interest of the southwest in Mexico was a spirited 
one. Aaron Burr attempted to do in 1806 what the whole 
southwest was dreaming of. He was conspiring against 
Spain in Mexico and not against the United States as is 
usually supposed. "Lands, water-ways, and Indians" was 
the cry of men desiring to drive out Spain. 

In the Nashville Clarion of April 28, 1812, there appear- 
ed a long article advocating the annexation of all America, 
closing with the statement: "Where is it written in the 
book of fate that the American republic shall not stretch 
her limits from the capes of the Chesapeake to Nootka 
Sound, from the Isthmus of Panama to Hudson Bay?" 
The paper then editorially commended the article to its 
readers and followed it up with a series of historical and 
descriptive articles about Mexico. 

The War of 1812 continued for two years. Troops were 
raised to invade Canada but interest in the venture was 
slight. Many of the militia refused to march out of Amer- 
ican territory, as it was understood then that the miiltia 
could not be ordered to foreign soil. The expansionists 
united to declare war but their plans of expansion col- 
lapsed. The northern states opposed the annexation of 
Florida without Canada. The troops could not take Can- 
ada. Madison and Monroe were interested in Florida, not 
Canada. The British repulsed the troops from Canada. 
The south had no desire to acquire northern territory. 

The War of 1812, in fact, was a complete failure from 
every angle. Our troops were defeated. General Win- 
field Scott declared that the army officers were "generally 
sunk in either sloth, ignorance, or habits of intemperate 
drinking," "swaggerers, dependents, decayed gentlemen 
utterly unfit for any military purpose whatever." 

Muzzey in The United States of America through the 
Civil War, Vol. I, page 253, says "The War of 1812 was a 
blunder. It was unnecessary, impolitic, untimely, and 


rash." It was primarily the work of Henry Clay. If the 
United States had been in any condition to fight, we would 
have been of great aid to Napoleon who at that time was 
being defeated by Great Britain. 

In the peace treaty of 1814, which brought the war to a 
close, the causes of the war were not mentioned. The War 
of 1812 was a war of paradoxes. It was waged ostensibly 
in defense of maritime commercial interests, but the mer- 
chant states themselves refused to support it. The Eng- 
lish Orders in Council, the alleged cause of the war, were 
repealed five days after war was declared and before news 
of its declaration reached England. The most important 
battle of the war, the Battle of New Orleans, was fought 
after the treaty of peace had been signed. The United 
States did not get any of the desired territory; was de- 
feated in nearly every campaign ; and the national capitol 
was burned by the English. The land was not gained and 
the rights on the sea were not granted. England never 
yielded the right of impressment, which remained a diplo- 
matic controversy as late as 1842. 

In order to save its reputation, the Administration pub- 
lished an "Exposition of the Causes and Character of the 
War," prepared by A. J. Dallas, in which it was denied 
that the administration had ever tried to acquire Canada. 
Madison was a great scholar but not a strong executive. 
It was the war hawks led by Clay who forced the war upon 
him and the nation. 

Adams, Henry, John Randolph. 

Hocker, L. M., "Western Land Hunger and the War of 1812; a Con- 
jecture," Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. X, pp. 363-395, 

Johnson, Allen, Union and Democracy. Chapter 11. 

Lewis, H. J., A Re-analysis of the Causes of the War of 1812," Ameri- 
can Historical Magazine, Vol. VI, pages 306-316, 577-584. 

Muzzey, D. S., The United States of America Through the Civil War, 
Vol. I, chapter 5. 

Pratt, J. W., The Expansionists of 1812. 



Early in the nineteenth century the people of the United 
States, and especially those of the southwest, became in- 
terested in that part of Mexico known as Texas. The 
Louisiana purchase was made in 1803. Settlers went im- 
mediately into that region along the Mississippi River. 
The expansionist movement then grew rapidly as we have 
seen, and was the major cause of the War of 1812. Amer- 
ican settlers pushed into Mexico and soon got control of 
that section now known as Texas, where there were few 
Mexicans. These citizens of the United States went there 
on the assumption that Texas would some day become a 
part of the United States. Much of Texas was suited for 
the raising of cotton, — hence slavery was profitable. 

In 1827 Mexico passed a law providing for the gradual 
abolition of slavery. The people of Texas interested in 
slavery resented this as did the pro-slavery factions in 
the United States. Sentiment in Texas for secession 
crystallized rapidly, and in 1836 Texas seceded from Mex- 
ico, later asking to be annexed to the United States. Some 
of the anti-slavery groups opposed this annexation which 
would increase the slave territory. In her constitution of 
1837 Texas legalized slavery. It was not until 1845 that 
Texas was admitted as a state. 

Polk of Tennessee, an ardent expansionist, was elected 
President by the Democrats in 1844. "Manifest Destiny" 
had then become the slogan of the Democratic party. Ac- 
cordingly, President Tyler secured the annexation of 
Texas as a state just before his term of office closed in 
1845, a few days before he was succeeded by Polk. 

Texas in revolt from Mexico claimed more territory 
than she had possessed while a Mexican state. Her south- 
ern boundary had then been the Nueces River, but after 
revolting, she laid claim down to the Rio Grande. This 
area between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande was 
sparsely settled, but its inhabitants were Mexicans and 
included the Mexican settlements at the mouth of the Rio 


Grande. Polk did not desire war but he was eager to 
acquire this disputed territory. He sent John Slidell, of 
Louisiana, as minister to Mexico to induce Mexico to ac- 
cept the Rio Grande as the southern boundary of Texas 
rather than the Nueces River, which had been the south- 
ern boundary of Texas while a Mexican province. Slidell 
was also instructed to buy from Mexico the territory now 
comprising the states of New Mexico, California, Arizona, 
Utah, Nevada, and part of Colorado, all of which was then 
a part of Mexico. Mexico, however, refused to receive 
Slidell or consider disposing of that territory. 

When Polk could not acquire this desired territory by 
negotiation, he ordered General Taylor to enter the Rio 
Grande territory. This was done on January 13, 1846. 
On May 9, 1846, Polk notified the cabinet of his intention 
to recommend a war with Mexico within a few days, by 
which means he hoped to take the territory he could not 
buy. On the night of May 9, 1846, news came to President 
Polk that on April 24, 1846, the American army had 
a skirmish with Mexican forces. On May 11, 1846, Pres- 
ident Polk sent a message to Congress stating Mexico had 
*'shed American blood upon American soil. War exists, 
and notwithstanding all our efforts to avoid it, exists by 
the act of Mexico herself." And two days later. May 13, 
1846, President Polk informed his cabinet that the United 
States must acquire New Mexico, California, and the sur- 
rounding southwest territory as a result of the war. Some 
of the cabinet members wanted to take all of Mexico. 
Secretary of State Buchanan in a public letter said : ''Des- 
tiny beckons us to hold and civilize Mexico." 

Americans had often tried to incite rebellions in Mexico. 
Many were arrested there and shot for treason. The Unii>- 
ed States, however, had never discouraged her citizens 
from trying to dismember Mexico. 

The circumstances surrounding the outbreak of hostili- 
ties between General Taylor and the Mexicans were these : 
President Polk had ordered General Taylor to enter the 
Rio Grande region with American troops. He was arbi- 
trarily accepting the Rio Grande and not the Nueces River 
as the southern boundary of Texas. The American troops 



marched down to the Rio Grande opposite Matamoras, a 
Mexican village south of the Rio Grande. They then 
blockaded the town and cut off its outlet down the Rio 
Grande. Mexicans crossed over the Rio Grande to drive 
the Americans away and to make them cease their inter- 
ference with this Mexican village. Fourteen Americans 
were killed in the skirmish. Rhodes, on page 87, Vol. I, 
History of the United States, says * 'Mexico was actually 
goaded on to the war." 

Mexico had notified the United States that the annexa- 
tion of Texas would be treated as a cause of war. The 
Mexican press made threats. Yet there were so many 
internal quarrels in Mexico that open hostilities could 
have been avoided if the United States had not taken the 
position of supporting Texas in her claim to the Rio 
Grande as her southern boundary, disregarding the 
Nueces River as the southern boundary of Texas while a 
Mexican province. Webster, Clay, Calhoun, Benton, and 
Tyler regarded the war as the result of poor management 
on the part of President Polk. The Whig party generally 
criticised it while the Democrats usually favored it, al- 
though, as the war continued, both groups were won over 
to its support. The Massachusetts legislature resolved in 
April, 1847, during hostilities, that the war had been "un- 
constitutionally commenced by the order of the President 
for the dismemberment of Mexico." Lincoln also criticis- 
ed the war while it was in progress. He voted for a reso- 
lution offered by Mr. Ashburn in the House declaring that 
the war had been "unnecessarily and unconstitutionally" 
begun. On December 22, 1847, Mr. Lincoln offered the 
famous "Spot Resolution," calling upon the President to 
furnish Congress with information regarding the "spot" 
where hostilities had begun. A pamphlet was sent to Mr. 
Lincoln in which the author claimed that "in view of all 
the facts" the government of the United States had com- 
mitted no aggression in Mexico. To this Mr. Lincoln re- 
plied : 

"It is a fact that the United States army in marching 
to the Rio Grande marched into a peaceful settlement, 
and frightened the inhabitants away from their 


houses and their growing crops. It is a fact that Fort 
Brown, opposite Matamoras, was built by that army 
within a Mexican cotton field, on which at the time 
the army reached it a young cotton crop was growing, 
which crop was totally destroyed, and the field itself 
greatly and permanently injured by ditches, embank- 
ments, and the like." 

Although Lincoln voted for army supplies he always 
criticised the war. For this Lincoln's ''patriotism" was 
questioned by Douglas in 1858 during the Lincoln-Douglas 
debates. General Grant in his Memoirs, Vol. I, page 53, 
said he considered the Mexican War "one of the most un- 
just ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation." 

Macy, Jesse, Political Parties in the United States, 1846-1861. ch. 7-22. 
Rhodes, James Ford, History of the United States. Vol. I, pages 87-92. 
Smith, Justin H., The War With Mexico. Vols. I and II. 
Tarbell, Ida, Life of Lincoln. Vol. II, ch. I. 
Wilson, Woodrow, Division and Reunion, ch. 6. 



The Civil War was the result of sectional power politics. 
The major economic interests of the North and of the 
South each attempted to win the West to its economic sys- 
tem and thereby control the federal government for its 
advantage. In every other country of the world slavery 
has been abolished without war. The question of slavery 
had not been a party issue until after the Mexican War, 
but from then until the election of 1860 slavery was the 
leading political issue. During the war with Mexico, 
Wilmot of Pennsylvania offered what is kno'v^m as the 
Wilmot Pro\'iso, which pro\'ided that the territory acquir- 
ed from Mexico should be closed to slavery. Although 
this bill was defeated in Congress it brought up the ques- 
tion of the further extension of slavery. 

At the time of the Mexican War there were two national 
parties — the WTiigs and the Democrats. These two par- 
ties embraced almost all of the people, and as both were 
strong in both sections of the United States, they tended 
to cement the union, for parties on a national basis tend 
to unify a nation while sectional parties lead to disunion. 
The anti-slavery people and the moderates gravitated to- 
wards the Whig parU' while the pro-slavery people gra\'i- 
tated towards the Democratic party. 

The WTiigs elected General Zachary Taylor President 
in 1848. Although he was a large slave holder of Louisi- 
ana, he was a moderate and satisfactory to all groups and 
sections. He had the support of Lincoln as well as of the 
southern Whigs. Soon after Taylor became President, 
Henry Clay proposed the famous Compromise of 1850, the 
important features of which were : admit California as a 
free state, organize the remainder of the territory taken 
from Mexico without regard to slavery, abolish the slave 
trade in the District of Columbia, and pass a fugitive slave 
law to be enforced by the federal government. This com- 
promise, although a "WTiig measure, was instrumental in 
killing the Whig part\\ No party or section was satisfied 


with it. President Taylor opposed it but his death before 
its passage brought to the presidency Vice-President Fill- 
more, who allowed it to become a law without his signa- 
ture. The provision that broke the Whig party was the 
strict fugitive slave law. The anti-slavery Whigs repud- 
iated their party. The idea of returning fugitive slaves 
was shocking to the best moral judgment of the time. The 
leaders of moral sentiment — ministers, poets, and reform- 
ers of every type — advised disobedience. It was a dead 
letter because the moral sentiment of the age was against 
it. On the other hand, the pro-slavery people did not like 
it because it was not enforced. Thus the law was treated 
with contempt by both parties. 

The Whig party, opposed to expansion and the exten- 
sion of slavery, was disrupted. The Democrats carried 
all except four states in 1852. They remained in power 
until 1860, dominated by the powerful pro-slavery senti- 
ment throughout this period. 

After the fall of the Whig party the Republican party 
was organized in 1856. It took the name Republican from 
the followers of Thomas Jefferson and claimed to be a 
revival of the party of Jefferson. It was opposed to the 
extension of slavery. It was organized and, until after 
the Civil War, dominated by the liberal element in the 
United States. The Democratic party also claimed them- 
selves to be followers of Jefferson. Jefferson was opposed 
to slavery and special privilege in every form. He advo- 
cated state rights or a decentralized government because 
he believed the states were and would remain more demo- 
cratic than the federal government. But by 1860 that 
situation was reversed. The states — especially the south- 
ern states — had become dominated by the privileged 
group, who talked in terms of state rights to perpetuate 
this privilege. Jefferson talked in terms of state rights 
because he feared the domination of the federal govern- 
ment by the reactionary element. The Democratic party 
of the pre-Civil War period had repudiated Jefferson. The 
Republican party did not become reactionary until after 
the War Between the States. 



When the Republican party was organized in 1854, it 
was regarded as radical in the eyes of the South, for its 
main purpose in organizing was the keeping of slavery 
out of the West. Its campaign literature in 1856 was 
composed largely of the anti-slavery utterances of Jef- 

In the election of 1860 Lincoln polled only 26,430 votes 
in the entire South and those were from the upper section. 
Douglas, the moderate Democrat, received 163,525 votes 
in the South ; Bell, of the Unionist party, received 515,973 
votes in the same section, while Breckenridge, the extreme 
pro-slavery candidate, received 570,871 votes in the entire 
South. Breckenridge carried the lower South by a plural- 
ity while Lincoln carried the West and North by a plural- 
ity. The Douglas and the Bell voters of the South were 
opposed to secession ; the secession vote went to Brecken- 
ridge. A majority in the South opposed secession but the 
Southern states fell into the hands of the secessionists by 
a plurality. 

Why did the South secede? Lincoln was elected on a 
platform defying the Dred Scott decision of 1857. Accord- 
ing to this decision the Constitution recognized slavery 
and therefore Congress could not prohibit it in the west- 
ern territories. This election of Lincoln on a platform to 
prohibit the expansion of slavery in the West caused the 
lower South to secede, as a gesture to uphold the courts 
and the Constitution. Lincoln coerced them in order to 
uphold the Constitution as he had been legally elected 
president and his office required his execution of federal 

By 1860 slavery in the greater part of the civilized 
world was a dead or a dying institution. Great Britain 
in 1833 abolished slavery with compensation in all her 
possessions. Mexico provided for the gradual abolition 
of slavery as early as 1827. Brazil followed in 1888 and 
Spain abolished slavery in Cuba in 1878. In all these cases 
it was done without conflict with no slave psychology re- 
maining to be a source of friction. All the northern states 
of the union had become free and the western states and 
territories were repudiating slavery as well. When Call- 


fornia drew up her constitution and asked for admission 
in 1850, the clause prohibiting slavery was adopted by a 
unanimous vote of her constitutional convention. In the 
referendum held in Kansas in 1858, 11,300 out of a total 
vote of 13,088 were opposed to slavery. Only a few slaves 
had been carried there and they could never have been 
permanently held as slaves. New Mexico was organized 
as a territory in 1850 without regard to slavery. Nevada, 
Colorado, and Dakota were organized as territories before 
1860 but had no slaves. In Missouri slavery was on the 
decrease, if judged by its percentage of the entire popula- 
tion — in 1830, 17.8% of the Missouri population were 
slaves; in 1840, 15.5% ; in 1850, 12.8% ; and in 1860, only 
9.8%. Slavery would have existed in Missouri only for a 
few more years, for the anti-slavery population was in- 
creasing rapidly by settlers from the free states and by 
great numbers of people from Germany who settled in 
the neighborhood of St. Louis. 

By 1860, slavery was non-existent in all sections of the 
union except the tobacco, cotton, and sugar cane belts. In 
upholding the institution of slavery, the South was oppos- 
ed to the spirit of the age. Slavery was doomed by moral 
and economic pressure. 

Many people before 1860 saw the folly of this contro- 
versy regarding the status of slavery in the West. Gov- 
ernor Robert J. Walker of Mississippi recognized that the 
West would never be open to slavery, so did Stanton of 
Tennessee and Senator Toombs of Georgia. The status 
of slavery in the West had been settled by the laws of 
nature. The two sections, however, cherished perverted 
ideas of each other. It was reported, and actually believ- 
ed in the North, that Senator Robert Toombs of Georgia 
had boastfully declared that he would call the roll of his 
slaves in Massachusetts. 

The following incidents given in Macy's Political Par- 
ties in the United States, pages 209 to 211, are illustrative 
of the state of public excitement preceding the Civil War. 
In an effort to dictate the slave policy of the West, Charlie 
B. Lines, a deacon of a New Haven congregation, had en- 



listed a company of seventy-nine emigrants for the war. 
A meeting was held in the church shortly before their 
departure, for the purpose of raising funds, at which 
meeting many clergymen and members of the Yale Col- 
lege faculty were present. The leaders of the party an- 
nounced that they were needed for self-defense. After 
an earnest address from Henry Ward Beecher, the sub- 
scription began. Professor Silliman started the subscrip- 
tion with one Sharpens rifle ; the pastor of the church gave 
the second. Fifty was the number wanted. Then Beecher 
announced that if twenty-five were pledged on the spot 
Plymouth Church would furnish the rest. Churches in 
both sections had by that time become agencies for pro- 
pagating hatred. Another incident is a southern one. 
Colonel Bufort of Alabama sold a number of his slaves 
valued at $20,000, and invested the money to equip a troop 
of three hundred soldiers to fight for southern rights in 
Kansas. A contemporary account states : 

"The day that Buf ort*s battalion started from Mont- 
gomery they marched to the Baptist Church. The 
Methodist minister solemnly invoked the divine bless- 
ing on the enterprise ; the Baptist pastor gave Bufort 
a finely bound Bible, and said that a subscription had 
been raised to present each emigrant with a copy of 
the Holy Scripture." 

This battalion left for the west armed with Bibles and 
Sharpens rifles. The existence of such a condition of ex- 
citement made it an easy matter to precipitate war. The 
South met this opposition by demanding that all anti- 
slavery publications be excluded from the mails. Books, 
papers, and all publications suspected of containing anti- 
slavery popaganda were taken from the mails and pub- 
licly burned at Charleston, S. C, There were many mani- 
festations of disregard for the sanctity of the mails. The 
North judged the South by these extreme actions, and 
these efforts of the South to suppress anti-slavery agita- 
tion resulted only in greater propaganda for the aboli- 

The public is quick to demand war but not so willing to 
accept its hardships. During the conflict it was necessary 


for both the North and the South to suspend civil liberties, 
including freedom of the press and speech. Expressions 
that might weaken war morale were punished— both sec- 
tions suspended the writ of habeas corpus and arbitrarily 
imprisoned their citizens. About 38,000 people were im- 
prisoned in the North while the number imprisoned in 
the South is unknown. Both sections resorted to the draft 
to recruit soldiers. Yet, with all these weapons at their 
disposal, the northern army succeeded in enlisting only 
about J,325,000 of its native white population out of a 
total of 23,000,000. Besides approximately 1,325,000 na- 
tive whites, the northern army consisted of 300,000 whites 
from the South, 186,000 Negroes, and 500,000 foreigners. 
Left to the voluntary support of its citizens neither sec- 
tion could have carried on the war. No major war of mod- 
ern times could have been fought with voluntary support. 
The draft acts of both sections allowed for the employ- 
ment of substitutes, which, of course, was hard on the 
poorer classes who could not employ substitutes. Deser- 
tion was frequent on both sides. Rhodes estimates the 
number of deserters in the South at 100,000 in 1864.^ 

Much has been heard of the heroism and sacrifice dis- 
played during the conflict but little of the crimes com- 
mitted by both sections. Only the pleasant phases of the 
war have survived. When Joseph Holt and Robert Dale 
Owen were appointed by Secretary of War Stanton to 
adjust claims for materials supplied to the War Depart- 
ment, they found fraud at every turn, and before making 
their final report in July, 1862, secured deductions of 
nearly $17,000,000 from claims amounting to $50,000,000. 
One claim alone was reduced $1,000,000 and another was 
reduced $580,000. One senator received $10,000 for se- 
curing an order from the War Department for a client. 
Colonel Henry S. Olcott, who was appointed special com- 
missioner to investigate frauds, after a thorough exami- 
nation of the facts announced that from 20% to 25% of 
the expenditures of the Federal treasury during the War 

^Rlla I^-onn. Desertion During the Civil War, gives full treatment of 



Between the States was tainted with fraud, and, accord- 
ing to his estimate, approximately $700,000,000 was paid 
through f raud.2 

In commenting upon the moral conditions during the 
conflict, the Springfield Republican said editorially : 

"It is a sad, a shocking picture of life in Washington, 
which our correspondents are giving us ; — a Bureau 
of the Treasury Department made a home of seduc- 
tion and prostitution; the necessities of poor and 
pretty women made the means of their debauchery 
by high government officials; members of Congress 
putting their mistresses into clerkships in the depart- 
ments ; whiskey drinking ad libitum. 

The conflict abolished the institution of slavery but not 
the psychology of slavery. This psychology on the part 
of the white population is now a major source of friction 
in problems pertaining to race. 

*James Ford Rhodes, History of the United States 1850-1877, Vol. V, 

p. 220. 
• ma. P. 212 

Dodd, W. E., The Cotton Kingdom. 
Lonn, Ella, Desertion During the Civil War. 
Macy, Jesse, The Anti-Slavery Crusade. 
Macy, Jesse, Political Parties in the United States, ch. 7-22. 
Rhodes, James Ford, History of the United States, 1850-1877. Vols. 

Stephenson, N. W., The Day of the Confederacy. 
Stephenson, N. W., AbraJiam Lincoln and the Union. 
Wright, E. N., Conscientious Objectors in the Civil War. 



For almost a century the Spanish possession of Cuba 
had been regarded with disfavor by certain elements in 
the United States. Reasons for this attitude varied from 
those of acquisition on grounds of "manifest destiny," to 
those of the highest altruism. When the Spanish-Ameri- 
can republics won their independence during the early 
years of the nineteenth century, Puerto Rico and Cuba 
remained in the possession of Spain. 

Thomas Jefferson advocated the acquisition of Cuba 
and its annexation as a state, chiefly for fear that it would 
be acquired by England. Later, pro-slavery leaders want- 
ed to take the island in order to extend slave territory, as 
had been done in the case of Florida and Texas. Cuba's 
annexation was a part of the "manifest destiny" program 
which was rampant in the years preceding the Civil War. 
Many filibustering expeditions were sent there with an- 
nexation in view. The Cubans themselves often came to 
the United States, became naturalized citizens of this 
country, and would return to Cuba with an unfriendly 
attitude toward Spanish authority, counting for protec- 
tion on their American citizenship, in case of trouble. 

There had often been spasmodic outbreaks in Cuba be- 
fore 1895. In 1868, there broke out what is known as 
the "Ten Years' War" which lasted until 1878. The causes 
of these conflicts were never clearly understood by the 
participants on either side. Sugar cane was the principal 
source of Cuban wealth. According to the customary pol- 
icy of trade barriers, Spain imposed duties on goods com- 
ing from the United States and the United States imposed 
high duties on Cuban sugar. These duties severely hurt 
Cuban economic life, and as economic depressions as well 
as prosperity are always attributed to the party in power 
regardless of the real causes, the Cubans, no exception to 
this rule, blamed the political power then in authority. 

During this "Ten Years' War" many expeditions were 
secretly fitted out in the United States by and for the Cu- 



bans. In 1873, a ship, the Virginitis, sailing under Amer- 
ican colors, carrying men and supplies to the Cuban in- 
surgents was captured by a Spanish gunboat. The crew 
and passengers were given a trial which resulted in the 
execution of fifty-three, of whom eight claimed to be 
American citizens. Immediately, the war cry went up in 
the United States. But due to the wise policy of President 
Grant it never gained headway. 

Finally, in 1878, Spain agreed to forget the past, abol- 
ish slavery in Cuba, and admit delegates from Cuba to 
the Spanish Cortes or Parliament. The Cubans agreed 
and hostilities ceased. All men in Cuba were given the 
ballot if they paid taxes to the amount of $25.00 annually, 
which still excluded the poorer classes. Of the represent- 
atives sent by the island to the Spanish Parliament in 
Madrid, about one-fifth were Cuban-born. This arrange- 
ment lasted as long as the economic life of Cuba was nor- 

But in February, 1895, a new war for independence 
broke out. This was caused by a severe depression of the 
sugar industry resulting from the repeal in 1894 of the 
McKinley Tariff which had permitted the free entry of 
Cuban sugar into the United States, giving the Cuban 
sugar industry access to the United States market. The 
closing of the United States to Cuban sugar was a great 
blow to Cuba's sugar industry. Spanish authority in Cuba 
was held responsible and warfare was soon established 
between the insurgents and Spanish authorities. A hu- 
mane governor-general tried to suppress the insurrection 
peacably but without satisfactory results. Accordingly, 
General Weyler became Governor-General of Cuba, on 
February 16, 1896. He inaugurated the concentration 
policy by which the inhabitants of Cuba were assembled 
or crowded within certain military camps for it was im- 
possible to distinguish the loyalists from the insurgents. 
As a result of this, there was great suffering and destruc- 

Gomez was leader of the insurgents. He destroyed all 
the property he possibly could in an endeavor to compel 
the United States to intervene. By attempting to destroy 


Spanish authority Gomez hoped to secure the help of the 
United States. The insurgents were often led by Cubans 
who had come to America, obtained United States citizen- 
ship, and returned to the island claiming the privilege of 
their acquired citizenship. Between February 24, 1895, 
and January 22, 1897, seventy-four persons claiming to 
be citizens of the United States were arrested by Spanish 
authority, because of their activities as insurgents. But 
fully three-fourths of those arrested were Cubans or sons 
of Cubans who had been naturalized in the Untied States. 
Often the insurgents developed their plans on American 
soil and secured military aid here. The federal govern- 
ment took precautions to prevent this but many expedi- 
tions were made in spite of action taken to prevent them. 

Our Department of State protested to Spain against the 
concentration policy in Cuba carried out under Governor- 
General Weyler, but Spain contended that her methods of 
suppressing rebellion in Cuba were no more severe than 
the methods employed by our federal government during 
the Civil War. Attention was called by Spain to the 
Sherman march through the South and to Sheridan's 
activities in Virginia. Spain also called attention to the 
Cuban Junta in New York and claimed that the principal 
insurgent assistance came from American soil. 

Congress appropriated $50,000 for the relief of Amer- 
icans in Cuba but up to the fall of 1897 only $6,000 of the 
$50,000 had been used, so little need was there for it. In 
this war in Cuba between insurgents or rebels and Span- 
ish authority, both sides destroyed all the property pos- 

William Randolph Hearst, who was then the leader of 
American yellow journalism, had at this time developed 
his chain of newspapers from California to Boston. Early 
in 1897, he began advocating intervention. Appeals were 
made daily. Stories, crimes, and conditions were pictured 
in his papers and greatly exaggerated. Mr. McKinley, 
opposed to intervention, became President on March 4, 
1897. Mark Hanna, who had elected Mr. McKinley Pres- 
ident, now wished to be compensated by an appointment 
to the United States Senate from Ohio. To create a vacan- 



cy in the Senate, Mr. McKinley appointed as his Secretary 
of State Mr. John Sherman who was then Senator from 

Mr. Hanna was appointed by the Governor of Ohio to 
the United States Senate. Mr. McKinley's appointment 
of John Sherman as Secretary of State was a great blun- 
der. Mr. Sherman was then very old and rapidly declin- 
ing. His work was left in the hands of his assistants in 
the Department of State. 

United States citizens owned wealth in Cuba to the 
amount of $50,000,000 and our commerce with Cuba 
amounted to $100,000,000 annually. These interests, of 
course, demanded intervention. Our Department of State 
in its correspondence with Spain estimated that $16,000,- 
000 worth of American property had been destroyed in 
Cuba at the close of 1897, for which property Spain was 
held responsible. This was a greatly exaggerated figure, 
for at the close of the war a claims commission was creat- 
ed by Congress to investigate those claims, and this com- 
mission recognized as valid claims amounting to only 
about $362,252. 

In October, 1897, Spain recalled Governor-General 
Weyler, and appointed in his place Blanco. The concen- 
tration order was revoked. Spain offered the natives a 
larger share of self-government with their own constitu- 
tion and legislature. Autonomy was granted. If it had 
been offered three years before, this would, no doubt, 
have solved the problem. But it was difficult to reconcile 
the two factions in Cuba. The native Spaniards in Cuba 
opposed home rule, as it would give the Cubans too much 
power. The Cubans wanted independence, and were un- 
willing to cooperate with the Spaniards in home rule. A 
Cuban parliament was called on May 4, 1898. 

The Hearst newspapers were then demanding interven- 
tion on the part of the United States and moulding public 
opinion in that direction. Although the election of 1896 
was over and it had settled the issue of free silver, yet 
other social elements had entered into American politics 
through the election and campaign of 1896. It was in the 
interests of some people to make use of a * Vigorous for- 


eign policy" to keep public attention away from the new 
issues. This is an old device for obliterating home issues 
or differences. Lincoln had been advised to precipitate 
the United States into a foreign war as a means of pre- 
venting the Civil War. 

On February 9, 1898, the New York Journal, a strong 
advocate of intervention, violated the sanctity of the Unit- 
ed States mails by securing through criminal methods a 
private letter written by Lome, the Spanish minister at 
Washington, to a friend. In this letter Lome severely 
criticised McKinley, and spoke of him with contempt. 
This letter was published by the New York Journal. It 
excited public opinion, and was, of course, made use of by 
the jingo press.^ 

In the midst of the great excitement created by the 
Lome letter, another incident took place of advantage to 
the war party. On January 24, 1898, the Maine was or- 
dered to Cuba on a "friendly visit". This trip was accept- 
ed officially as a complimentary visit but privately both 
Spain and the United States regarding it in the opposite 
light. After being in Havana harbor for three weeks, the 
Maine was blown up on February 15, 1898. "Remember 
the Maine" now became the slogan of the war party. 
Spain denied any connection with its destruction and no 
one now believes it was blown up by Spain. The actual 
cause of the explosion is not known, but it is now believed 
to have been done by the rebels in Cuba for the purpose 
of securing the intervention of the United States. It may 
have been an accident with which Spain could in no way 
be connected, yet, at the time, in the eyes of the public, 
Spain was held responsible. 

McKinley during this period opposed intervention, but 
the war party supported by the Hearst papers was grow- 
ing rapidly. Our able minister in Spain, General Wood- 
ford, was also opposed to our intervention. Congress, 
however, held the opposite attitude. A senator said to 
Assistant Secretary of State Day: "Day, doesn't your 

iM. M. Wilkerson, Public Opinion on the Spanish-American War, gives 
full treatment of the press in precipitating the conflict. 



President know where the war-declaring power is lodged? 
Tell him that if he doesn't do something, Congress will 
exercise the power/' Congressman Boutell, who was oppos- 
ed to the war, says that forty of fifty Republican members 
of Congress held a caucus and sent a committee to the 
President stating that unless he asked for declaration of 
war, they would propose a resolution for war and carry it 
through. Secretary of War Alger, who was a notorious 
spoilsman, said to a senator : 

"I want you to advise the President to declare war. 
He is making a great mistake. He is in danger of 
ruining himself and the Republican party by stand- 
ing in the way of the people's wishes. Congress will 
declare war in spite of him. He'll get run over and 
the party with him." 

Rhodes, in McKMey and Roosevelt Administrations, on 
page 64, says : 

McKinley feared a rupture in his own party, and on 
account of that fear, had not the nerve and power to 
resist the pressure for war. We may rest assured 
that if Mark Hanna had been President, there would 
have been no war with Spain. 

McKinley was opposed to the war up to the last of 
March, 1898. Only two members of his cabinet were in 
favor of war. Also, the Vice-President was against it, so 
was Mark Hanna, the Speaker of the House, and nearly 
all the leading Republicans of the Senate. 

On March 29, 1898, McKinley sent his ultimatum to 
Spain demanding the complete abandonment of the con- 
centration policy, the granting of an armistice to Cuba, 
and the opening of peace negotiations through himself 
with the insurgents. Spain replied granting the complete 
abandonment of the concentration policy and did not re- 
fuse to grant the armistice, but told our minister. Gen- 
eral Woodford, that she would gladly grant it, if the 
Cubans, who were the resistors, asked for it. Our min- 
ister at Madrid then cabled McKinley that the Spanish 
government and people wished to settle the difficulty with- 


out war, and that in a few months' time, he would "get 
peace in Cuba, with justice to Cuba and protection to our 
great American interests." 

On April 6, 1898, the representatives of Great Britain, 
Germany, France, Austria, Russia, and Italy made an ap- 
peal to McKinley to continue peaceful negotiations. The 
Pope also intervened for peace. He asked the Queen of 
Spain to comply fully with our ultimatum. Accordingly, 
on April 10, McKinley was notified by the Foreign Office 
at Madrid that Spain would grant the armistice. But on 
the following day, Monday, April 11, 1898, McKinley ap- 
peared before Congress and asked for a declaration of war 
against Spain, without informing them of the latest con- 
cessions made by Spain. It is impossible to explain Mc- 
Kinley's action. Through the efforts of Minister Wood- 
ford at Madrid and others a diplomatic victory had been 
won only to be thrown away by McKinley and Congress. 
The Spanish minister at Washington was notified that the 
President in his message to Congress on April 11, would 
explain the concession made by Spain, but this was not 
done — a reference only was made to it in his war message. 

War was declared on April 18, by a vote of 324 to 19 in 
the House, and 67 to 21 in the Senate. On March 31, 1898, 
Woodford had cabled to McKinley : "I believe the ministry 
are ready to go as far and as fast as they can and still save 
the dynasty here in Spain. They know that Cuba is lost. 
Public opinion in Spain has moved steadily towards 
peace." Then on April 3, 1898, Woodford sent this mes- 
sage to President McKinley : 

The Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs assures me 
that Spain will go as far and as fast as she can. I 
know that the Queen and her present ministry sin- 
cerely desire peace, and that the Spanish people de- 
sire peace, and if you can still give me time and reas- 
onable liberty of action, I am sure that before Octo- 
ber 1st, I will get peace in Cuba. 

Again on April 10, the day before our declaration of war, 
Woodford notified our Department of State that before 
August 1, he could secure autonomy for Cuba, or a recog- 
nition of its independence by Spain or a cession of the 



island to the United States. He then added : "I hope that 
nothing will be done to humiliate Spain, as I am satisfied 
the present government is going, and is loyally ready to 
go, as fast and as far as it can." It was an open secret 
that Spain would give up or sell Cuba as soon as she could. 

One cannot read the Woodford dispatches and fail to 
see that the Spanish-American War was thrust upon 
Spain by our jingo press. President McKinley over-esti- 
mated its strength and lost his nerve fearing the disrup- 
tion of his party. Spain was not surprised but "stunned'' 
when the United States declared war. 

The most important result of the war was our acquisi- 
tion of the Philippine Islands. In February, 1898, about 
two months before war was declared, Admiral Dewey of 
the American fleet was ordered to Hongkong, China, and 
instructed to be prepared to begin operations against the 
Philippines in case of a declaration of war. Until after 
the battle of Manila, the American people had never heard 
of the Philippine Islands. These islands were taken, how- 
ever, and at the peace conference, Mr. McKinley instruct- 
ed our commissioners not to be satisfied with anything 
less than the entire group of islands because of the "com- 
mercial opportunity," — ^they were secured as a trading 
base in the Orient. At that time, it seemed that China 
would be dismembered by the European powers and that 
unless we secured the Philippines, the United States would 
have no share in the Orient. This was our first step in a 
policy of Asiatic imperialism, clothed in mild terms. 

For three years after our capture of these islands, the 
natives put up a guerrilla warfare to resist the United 
States forces. During this period, the American army 
resorted to barbaric torture of the natives. Among other 
measures, the policy of concentrating the inhabitants in 
camps was resorted to, which was the same policy we 
objected to the use of by Spain in Cuba. Prisoners of war 
were executed in retaliation for crimes of which they 
knew nothing. One of our notorious army officers known 
as "Hell-Roaring" Jake Smith commanded that every^ 


building in a certain area be burned and every native over 
ten years of age be slain. The resistance was caused by 
the presence of United States soldiers in the islands. 

Beard, Charles A., Contemporary American History, ch. 8. 
Chadwick, F. E., Relations of United States and Spain. 
Latane, J. H., America as a World Power, ch. 1-5. 
Millis, Walter, The Martial Spirit. 

Rhodes, James Ford, The McKinley and Roosevelt Administrations. 
ch. 3, 4, 5. 

Schlesslnger, A. M., Political and Social History of the United States. 

ch. 14 and 15. 
Storey, M., The Conquest of the Philippines. 

Wilkerson, M. M., Ptiblic Opinion and the Spanish-American War. 



We shall not undertake a long discussion of the causes 
of World War I but simply examine the reasons for the 
participation in it of the United States on the side of the 
Allies. For the first time in history the generation living 
through a great war has been able to ascertain the facts 
regarding its origin. These facts, however, have not yet 
become the common property of the masses. A great many 
people are still influenced by the passions and hatreds 
aroused by the conflict. 

Briefly stated, the causes of the conflict were trade riv- 
alry between Great Britain and Germany, the scramble 
for territory especially in Africa, the conflict between 
Russia and Germany for the domination of the Balkan 
Peninsula, and the old inherited animosity between Ger- 
many and France. The immediate occasion for the open- 
ing of hostilities in 1914 was the murder of Archduke 
Ferdinand, the heir tc^ the throne of Austria-Hungary. 
This murder took place while he was in Bosnia. The 
crime was committed by representatives of a Pan-Slavic 
organization working hand in hand with the Serbian 
government with a view to annexing Bosnia to Serbia. 

Up to the nineteenth century, the Balkan Peninsula was 
owned by Turkey but the last century has witnessed the 
gradual break-up of European Turkey on the Balkan 
Peninsula. In connection with this disintegration, Russia 
tried to gain territory at the expense of Turkey. Austria- 
Hungary also tried to penetrate the same area. A conflict 
was the inevitable consequence. This Balkan problem had 
been a source of trouble in Europe for a century. The peo- 
ple of Serbia were Slavs and looked to Russia for support, 
— in fact, Serbia was practically governed by Russian 
diplomacy. Austria-Hungary looked to Germany for sup- 
port. In 1908, Bosnia, which was then a Turkish province 
but had been administered by Austria-Hungary since 
1878, was annexed by Austria-Hungary. This act offend- 
ed Serbia, who wished to annex it as part of the Pan- 


Slavic dream for the domination by Russia of Bosnia, 
Serbia, and the remainder of the Balkans. This annexa- 
tion by Austria-Hungary defeated the Pan-Slavic dream 
and was a victory for Pan-Germany. Feeling became more 
and more acute when in 1914 the Archduke Ferdinand was 
killed. The incident was applauded by Serbia and con- 
flict followed. The details of events in 1914 are too com- 
plicated to go into for our brief space, but popular ac- 
counts reaching the United States were from Allied 
sources and were correspondingly biased. ^ 

In 1914 all Europe was divided into two great military 
camps — ^the Allied and the Central Powers. The follow- 
ing is the size of the principal armies of Europe in 1914 : 
Germany, 806,000 ; Austria, 370,000 ; Italy, 305,000 ; Rus- 
sia, 1,284,000; France, 818,000; Belgium, 280,000. All 
Europe was equipped as a military machine and the mur- 
der in 1914 simply put the machinery in motion. It is an 
absurd fallacy to think that Germany was the only armed 
nation at the time, and to believe that Great Britain enter- 
ed the conflict to defend Belgium is equally absurd. As 
early as 1911, Great Britain had made plans with France 
for marching an army through Belgium to Germany in 
the event of war with Germany. Belgium was regarded 
as a part of the Allied powers. Great Britain has offi- 
cially acknowledged to be false her ostensible reason for 
entering the war — the protection of Belgium. Her reason 
was the struggle between rival imperialisms, which secret 
treaties later exposed show clearly. 

However, we are concerned here only with why the 
United States entered the war. The three outstanding 
causes were interference, with neutral trade, economic 
ties with the Allies, and Allied propaganda in the United 
States. These causes overlap in such a way as to make 
it difficult to discuss them separately. 

Soon after war was declared in 1914, Great Britain 
placed mines in the North Sea and with the aid of her 

^A. S. Fay, Origin of the World War, is best full account. 



navy blockaded Germany and the adjacent neutral por- 
tions of North Europe. As a result, all goods going in 
that direction were captured. The United States protest- 
ed but Great Britain refused to yield, claiming it to be a 
military necessity although illegal from the point of view 
of international law. Great Britain blockaded Germany 
by mines, and cut off all foreign trade with Germany and 
neutral ports near Germany to prevent the entrance of 
goods into Germany. Germany retaliated in February, 
1915, by employing the submarine to blockade Great Brit- 
ain. Since the object of warfare is the physical destruc- 
tion of an opponent, once you justify the war you must 
justify any means employed to gain the victory. In pro- 
testing to Germany, we argued that the submarines could 
not warn ships to take off passengers before they were 
sunk. American ships kept out of the mine zones, but 
disregarded the submarine zones. The Lusitania, a Brit- 
ish ship, was sunk by a submarine on May 7, 1915, with 
a loss of 1195 lives, including 124 Americans. We immed- 
iately protested. But the facts revealed since the war 
have shown that the Lmitania carried a large quantity of 
munitions of war including 2400 cases of cartridges, 11 
tons of black powder, and 173 tons of rifle ammunition.^ 
At the time the boat was sunk a United States senator 
asked the Treasury Department for the bill of lading. He 
was told it had been turned over to the State Department. 
When the senator asked the State Department for a copy 
of the bill of lading in order to see what was on board, the 
State Department refused to disclose the contents on the 
grounds that it was to be kept for diplomatic correspond- 

The British seized and searched the mails. United 
States officials below the rank of minister were searched 
by the British while traveling to and from the continent. 
Before the close of 1914, thirty-one cargoes of copper, 
valued at $5,500,000 had been captured by Great Britain 
but the United States owners were compensated. Their 

2C. H. Grattan, Why We Fought, p. 291. 


seizure, however, was illegal. Early in 1916, Germany 
agreed to give up the use of the submarine, but on condi- 
tion that the United States make Great Britain obey inter- 
national law. We could not force Great Britain to abide 
by international law, and consequently Germany resumed 
her submarine warfare in 1917, which was our official 
reason for entering the war. The effective causes of our 
entrance were our economic ties with the Allies, and the 
Allied propaganda in the United States. 

Modern warfare is a conflict of economic resources as 
well as armies. The British navy cut off all economic in- 
tercourse between Germany and the United States. In 
this way, the economic resources of the United States 
were in the hands of the Allies. American agriculture, 
credit, and industry soon became indispensable to the 
Allied cause. In 1915 an Anglo-French mission came to 
New York and secured a loan of $500,000,000. This money 
was left with various banks in New York for the purpose 
of buying supplies from America. The Allied govern- 
ments continued to borrow in Wall Street, and these banks 
loaned England and France money with which to buy 
materials. Soon the House of Morgan became the pur- 
chasing agent of the Allies. The Morgan firm selected 
Edward R. Stettinius, Sr., president of the Diamond 
Match Company, as the purchasing agent. Mr. Stettinius 
selected one hundred and seventy-five men to assist him 
in the task. They were soon purchasing supplies for the 
Allies at the rate of $10,000,000 a day. By September, 
1917, the Morgan firm had purchased $3,000,000,000 in 
merchandise and munitions for the Allies in addition to 
the selling of Allied bonds. The day the United States 
declared war against Germany the British government's 
bank account with Morgan was heavily overdrawn. 

When Kitchener became Minister of War in Great Brit- 
ain in 1915 one of his first acts was to cable Charles M. 
Schwab of the Bethlehem Steel Company to come to Eng- 
land immediately. Schwab went and agreed to sell all the 
output of the Bethlehem Steel Company to the British 
government. In less than two years, he shipped about 
$300,000,000 worth of war material to England. Twenty 



submarines were built and sent in parts to Canada where 
they were assembled and sent across to England. This 
was done a year before the German submarine Deutsch- 
land came to the United States and was advertised as the 
first to cross the Atlantic. (See John Moody, Masters of 
Capital, pages 162-172.) 

American industry had become one with the Allies. Our 
greatest banking and industrial institutions had become 
dependent upon an Allied victory and an Allied victory 
was dependent upon them. American industry became 
pro-Ally because the British blockade cut off our trade 
with Germany. German and Austrian agents such as 
Dumba, Karl Boy-Ed and Franz von Papen were expelled 
from the country because of their unneutral activities on 
behalf of the Central Powers. 

"Patriotic" societies such as "The Navy League," "The 
American Defense Society," and the "National Security 
League" were all tied up financially with munition plants. 
These societies were propaganda bureaus for "prepared- 
ness" and later for our entrance into the conflict. The 
nineteen men who founded the Navy League had among 
their number representatives of the three manufacturers 
of armor plate in America, — ^the Midvale, Bethlehem, and 
Carnegie Companies. The Navy League was in practice 
the propaganda bureau of the three companies working 
together to sell armor plate. 

Modern warfare has become even more than a conflict 
of armies and of economic resources. Propaganda to se- 
cure popular support, has become more and more neces- 
sary. Both sides in the European conflict made great 
efforts to present their propaganda before America, but 
the Central Powers failed primarily because of the British 
blockade. The Allies, on their side, had the cooperation 
of American business, and easily accomplished their pur- 
pose. Professor Hayes in his Brief History of the Great 
War says : 

The British resorted to every known device of propa- 
ganda from employing secret service agents in New 
York to maintaining at Washington the great jour- 


nalist, Lord Northcliffe, with a host of assistants, as 
a publicity director. 

These propagandists had the cooperation of the bank- 
ers who had made loans to the Allies or had acted as pur- 
chasing agents. All this happened in 1916, but the Amer- 
ican people never knew the source of their "war news" 
until the conflict was over. Mr. Rathom, of the Provi- 
dence Journal of Providence, R. L, was notorious for his 
accounts of German "crimes." The Boston Herald of 
December 30, 1923, in an editorial comment, says : 

It is, of course, true, as most well informed people 
now understand, that the Rathom disclosures which 
made the Providence Journal famous during the war 
were fiction — but Rathom did this for the praise- 
worthy purpose of arousing his countrymen to a war 
fury. He took one of the practical ways of doing so. 

Captain Ferdinand Tuohy of the British Secret Service 
in The Secret Corps says : 

All the trickery and subterfuge and war- wisdom of 
the ages brought up-to-date, intensified and harness- 
ed to every modern invention and device, .... a 
Machiavelli, a Talleyrand or some other master 
schemer of the ages come back to earth, would have 
thrilled at the amazing cunning and corruption of it 

The Belgium authorities themselves have denied the 
truth of the crimes given out in the Bryce Report. Mr. 
Lloyd George has stated in print that careful investiga- 
tions disclosed no case of Belgian children with hands cut 
off. Yet these are some of the crimes with which the 
American public were fed during 1916, 1917 and 1918. 
The peoples of the Central Powers were, of course, fur- 
nished similar crimes attributed to the Allies. There 
were many crimes committed as in all wars, but every 
nation was guilty of them. 

It is not easy to explain the attitudes of many promi- 
nent officials of the United States during the years pre- 
ceding our entrance into the war. Ambassador Walter 
H. Page, our representative in London, was guilty of 



direct disloyalty to the American Government and people. 
When President Wilson protested to the British Govern- 
ment against her disregard of neutral rights Mr. Page 
did not give the messages to Sir Edward Grey of the Brit- 
ish Foreign Office. He would read them to him and would 
then ask Grey to cooperate with him in making a reply to 
the United States. Sir Edward Grey says in his Memoirs : 

Page came to see me at the foreign office one day and 
produced a long dispatch from Washington contest- 
ing our claims to act as we were doing in stopping 
contraband in going to neutral ports. *I am instruct- 
ed/ he said, *to read this dispatch to you.' He read 
and I listened. He then said *I have now read the dis- 
patch but I do not agree with it. Let us consider how 
it should be answered.' 

In all diplomacy there is no other example of such a pro- 
cedure. Page was determined upon our entrance from 
the very beginning of the war. Many of our representa- 
tives at the principal courts of Europe were connected 
with the Allies personally through business or banking 
interests in this country. 

President Wilson had become converted to the idea of 
intervention by the spring of 1916. Sir Edward Grey 
says in his Memoirs that Colonel House assured him in 
February, 1916, that Wilson would do his best to bring 
the United States to the aid of the Allies. In April, 1916, 
the President consulted Champ Clark, Speaker of the 
House ; Claude Kitchin, Democratic Leader ; H. D. Flood, 
Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee ; and other 
Democratic leaders regarding their willingness to bring 
the United States into the war on the Allied side.^ This 
is known as the famous "Sunrise Conference." They re- 
fused, and Mr. Wilson allowed his party to use as the 1916 
campaign slogan, "He kept us out of war." At the time 
he was afraid to advocate intervention for fear of split- 
ting his party. There were demands on the part of cer- 
tain political leaders and the press for immediate inter- 

'For full account see A. M. Arnett, Claude Kitchin and the Wilson 
War Policies. 


vention but these demands were not representative of 
public opinion at the time. Ambassador Page brought his 
influence to bear on preventing the Allies from consider- 
ing German proposals for peace offered in 1916 and 1917. 

Allied propaganda represented Germany as lustful for 
world dominion. Careful examination now shows that 
there was no such policy except that which is common to 
all powers. This was part of the propaganda spread in 
the United States to inflame public opinion and make our 
entrance "defensive." Both sides resorted to trickery of 
every description. 

Brigadier General J. C. Charteris, Chief of Intelligence 
of the British Army during the war, stated boastfully in 
New York in an address in the fall of 1925 before the 
National Arts Club that he had invented the report that 
Germany was boiling down the bodies of her dead soldiers 
to be used as fertilizer. He made the statement under the 
impression that no reporters were present. The Rich- 
mond Times-Dispatch, on December 6, 1925, said edi- 
torially : 

A few years ago, the story of how the Kaiser was re- 
ducing human corpses to fat, aroused the citizens of 
this and other enlightened nations to a fury of hatred. 
Normally sane men doubled their fists and rushed off 
to the nearest recruiting sergeant. Now they are 
being told, in effect, that they were dupes and fools ; 
that their own officers deliberately goaded them to 
the desired boiling point, using an infamous lie to 
arouse them, just as a grown bully whispers to one 
little boy that another little boy said he could lick 
him. * * * 

In the next war, the propaganda must be more sub- 
tle and clever than the best the World War produced. 
These frank admissions of wholesale lying on the part 
of trusted governments in the last war will not soon 
be forgotten. 

After the United States entered the war in April, 1917, 
we immediately created a government propaganda bureau, 
which was known as "The Committee on Public Informa- 
tion," with George Creel as chairman. Since. the war, Mr. 
Creel has given us an account of the propaganda activities 



in his book — How We Advertised America, No effort was 
made to present the truth. Allied propaganda was accept- 
ed and to it we added ours. This "Committee on Public 
Information" issued 75,099,023 pamphlets and books to 
encourage the public "morale." They hired the services 
of 75,000 speakers who operated in 5,200 communities. 
Altogether, about 755,190 speeches were made by these 
people known as the "Four Minute Men." Exhibits were 
given at fairs and war films were prepared from which 
the Committee on Public Information received a royalty. 
A total of 1,438 drawings were employed to arouse popu- 
lar hatred. An official daily newspaper was issued which 
had a circulation of 100,000 copies. A propaganda bureau 
was established by the United States, in the capitals of 
every nation in the world except those of the Central Pow- 
ers. The total expenditure by the United States for prop- 
aganda was $6,738,223. The Espionage Act was passed 
making it illegal to spread "false" reports that would 
hinder recruiting. Every report was false which did not 
harmonize with the propaganda released by this Commit- 
tee on Public Information. 

Arnett, A. M., Claude Kitchin and the Wilson War Policies 
Allen, William C, War Behind the Smoke Screen 
Abrams, R. H., Preachers Present Arms 
Barnes, Harry E., The Genesis of the World War 
Creel, George, How We Advertised America 
Chaffee, Zechariah, Freedom, of Speech 
Fay, A. S., Origin of the World War 
Flick, A. C, Modern World History, ch. 34 
Grattan, C. H., Why We Fought 

Liasswell, H. D., Propaganda Technique in the World War 
Moody, John, Masters of Capital, ch. 9 

Squires, J. D., British Propaganda at Home and in the United States, 

Thomas, Norman, Is Conscience A Crime? 



There is always the danger of over-simplification in 
attempting to explain any movement in history. This is 
especially true of World War II. We shall attempt no 
explanation but merely state briefly some of the circum- 
stances under which the United States entered the con- 

World War I solved no problems, but raised many. 
Grood can come only out of intelligent creative action. The 
German Republic was doomed from its birth in 1919.^ 
Regarding the small, unbalanced economic units and the 
impossibility of their survival, Herbert Hoover wrote 
President Wilson while with him in Paris on April 11, 

I have the feeling that revolution in Europe is by 
no means over. The social wrongs in these countries 
are far from solution and the tempest must blow it- 
self out, probably with enormous violence. ♦ * * 

In my view, if the Allies can not be brought to 
adopt peace on the basis of the Fourteen Points, we 
should retire from Europe lock, stock and barrel, and 
we should lend to the whole world our economic and 
moral strength, or the world will swim in a sea of 
misery and disaster worse than the Dark Ages.^ 

In 1938 there was published in England The Next War 
Series consisting of eight volumes with Captain Liddell 
Hart as editor-in-chief. One volume, Propaganda in the 
Next War, written by Captain Sidney Rogerson of the 
British armed forces, was a treatise on the conduct of 
propaganda in the next war. Much of it was taken up 
with methods to be employed in deceiving the American 
public. With the outbreak of hostilities its sale to Amer- 
ica was prohibited by the British Foreign Office. A few 

*For brief description of European conditions out of which Hitler 
arose see Why Hitler?, price 10c, War Resisters League, New 
York, N. Y. 

•Herbert Hoover, America''s First Crusade, Pp. 46-47. 



copies had previously come to America. The copy in pos- 
session of the Congressional Library was put on the rare 
book shelf. The following- significant excerpts from this 
book are interesting : 

There can be no doubt that the next war will be 
billed as a fight between Democracy and Dictatorship. 
It may in fact be nothing of the sort. In the ultimate 
resort alliances spring from the hope of material ad- 
vantage, not the possession of a common ideological 
belief, but in our propaganda we must make the facts 
fit the case as far as possible.^ * * * 

In 1914 Japan was our gallant ally, the land of little 
children where the babies are the kings, and the coun- 
try of the Mikado, the cherry blossom and the chrys- 
anthemum. While with giant strides she was devel- 
oping commercially and industrially she was a rich 
market for British goods. At one time even her war- 
ships were built in British yards, and as recently as 
the great Tokyo earthquake of 1923, she was regard- 
ed sentimentally as an ex-ally .... When she be- 
gan to put to her own uses the machinery and equip- 
ment that our manufacturers had sold her, to shut 
the British trader out of Japan, to undersell him even 
in his home market and to develop an imperialistic 
and frankly annexationist policy, public opinion veer- 
ed around, becoming anti-Japanese.^ * * * 

"Most of the feeling of one ally for another is man- 
ufactured."^ * * * 

"The greatest propaganda force that the world has 
ever witnessed is the American film industry."^ 

On page 148 of that volume, there occurs the follow- 
ing statement : 

"It \\all need a definite threat to America, a threat, 
moreover, which will have to be brought home by 
propaganda to every citizen, before the republic will 
again take up arms in an external quarrel." 

World War II began hostilities in September, 1939. 
England entered presumably to restore Poland when Po- 

'Sidney Rogerson, Propaganda in the Next War. p. 140 
*rbid., p. 25. 
^rbid.. p. 155. 
•Ihid., p. 10. 


land was divided between Germany and Russia in 1939. 
Winston Churchill was more hostile to communism than 
to fascism till June 22, 1941, when Russia entered the war 
against Germany and became an ally of Great Britain. 
Previous to this, Churchill had been bitter in his denun- 
ciation of Russia stating that the rulers of Russia were 
"A band of cosmopolitan conspirators gathered from the 
underworld." In 1937 Mr. Churchill stated before the 
House of Commons, "If I had to choose between Commun- 
ism and Nazism, I would choose Nazism." 

President Roosevelt denounced the Russian attack on 
Finland in 1939 saying it *'was unprovoked aggression" 
by a ''brutal despotism second to none on earth." This 
was before he became an ally of Russia in 1941 and fur- 
nished Russia material with which to bomb Finland. 

Until a few years before World War II many of the 
leaders of the American Legion held a sympathy for fas- 
cist leaders. Mussolini himself was extremely popular 
with the Legion. Alvin Owsley, National Commander of 
the American Legion, in 1923 said : 

Do not forget that the fascisti are to Italy what 

the American Legion is to the United States 

( If ever needed, the American Legion stands ready to 
protect the country's institutions and ideals as the 
Fascisti dealt with obstructionists who menaced Italy. 

Greetings with Mussolini were exchanged at many of 
the Legion's annual conventions. In 1930, Mussolini was 
invited to speak at the annual convention in Boston. This 
invitation was withdrawn when organized labor protest- 
ed. In 1931, National Commander Ralph T. O'Neill pre- 
sented to the Fascist Ambassador in the United States 
resolutions of the National Executive Committee of the 
Legion greeting Mussolini and thanking him for assisting 
with Legion activities in Italy. In 1933, National Vice- 
Commander William Edward Eastman, Jr., visited Mus- 
solini and conferred upon him honorary membership in 
the Legion. This membership was later withdrawn when 
it was found to violate the constitution of the American 

7"How American Is the Legrion:" New Republic, Sept. 18, 1944. 



Writing in the News Bulletin, published by the National 
Council for Prevention of War, Washington, D. C, Dr. 
F. J. Libby, the executive secretary, stated in the Decem- 
ber 13, 1924, issue : 

We are further from peace than we were in 1922. 
The French occupation of the Ruhr and the passage 
by Congress of the Japanese Exclusion Act w^ere 
blows at the very heart of world peace. . . . The 
question of race equality has been made a live issue 
to be coupled in future years with the problem raised 
by white domination over people that want to be free. 
.... No nation won the last war. France is less 
secure than in 1914 ; England is less prosperous. 

In contrast with their governments, the people of the 
world were, generally speaking, anti-war throughout the 
twenties and far into the thirties. This powerful anti- 
war feeling of the country was recognized by the Presi- 

It was in 1930-1932 that Hitler arose to power on the 
misery of the German people. "Aggression" results soon- 
er or later from "oppression,'' whether it be economic, 
political, or psychological. The British government look- 
ed with complacency on the growing military power of 
Germany as a bulwark against Russia until 1938, when it 
was decided that Germany had grown too strong and re- 
versed its policy. 

The distribution of the world's raw materials suggests 
why Germany, Italy, and Japan were the "aggressors" 
in war. The 25 raw materials most needed by a modern 
industrial nation were distributed as follows after World 
War I: 


Adequate Partial None 

Great Britain 18 2 5 

United States 16 4 5 

Japan 3 5 17 

Germany 4 2 19 

Italy 4 21 

The Pacific fleet of the United States was attacked by 
Japan while stationed at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on De- 
cember 7, 1941. About 3,000 Americans were killed and 


our Pacific fleet was greatly damaged. This was the most 
disastrous naval tragedy in American history. According 
to the Gallup poll, 80 % of the American people were be- 
fore this opposing our entrance into World War II. This 
tragedy at Pearl Harbor was presented to the American 
public as an unprovoked and treacherous attack while the 
Administration was negotiating for peace with Japan. 
Congress declared war on Japan with only one dissenting 

An examination of the evidence shows that the Ameri- 
can public was deceived at the time regarding the occa- 
sion for this attack. Japan had been buying materials of 
war from the United States for several years for her use 
in the war with China. Winston Churchill had given 
moral support to Japan justifying the Japanese attack 
on China stating it was only "the suppression of Chinese 
bandits and communists." He had twice closed the Burma 
road over which China secured material. The policy of 
Winston Churchill and Roosevelt was in a sense pro-Jap- 
anese until June of 1941. Before this they felt Japan 
would go north and attack Russia. From the outbreak of 
the war in 1939 till June 22, 1941, it was felt in Great 
' Britain and in the United States that Russia might be an 
ally of Germany. When Germany attacked Russia in 
June, 1941, and Japan began to expand to the south of 
Asia towards British possessions the picture was entirely 
changed. That made Russia an ally of Great Britain. 
Winston Churchill reversed his former position regarding 
Japan and Roosevelt followed Churchill's policy. Pre- 
vious to this Churchill had welcomed the rise of fascism 
in Italy as a bulwark against communism. He had also 
admired Hitler's "courage and vital force" as well as 
Mussolini's "gentle and simple bearings" and his "tri- 
umphant struggle against the bestial appetite and passion 
of Leninism."^ 

The British Empire felt its danger in Asia was from 
Japan. The Christian Century on November 19, 1941, 
three weeks before Pearl Harbor, wrote : "It is no secret 

sWinston Churchill, Great Contemporaries, (1937). 



that the whole colonial structure of the white empires is 
threatening to fall apart unless we intervene in Asia, 
Many British leaders would welcome American involve- 
ment with Japan." 

According to Sidney Rogerson of the British army, to 
bring the United States into a European conflict on the 
side of England, it would : 

.... naturally be considerably eased if Japan were 
involved and .... this might and probably would 
bring America in without further ado. At any rate, 
it would be a natural and obvious object of our propa- 
gandists to achieve this, just as during the Great War 
they succeeded in embroiling the United States with 
(Germany. ^ 

The American policy of trading with Japan was revers- 
ed in July, 1941, after Russia became an ally of England- 
Previous to this President Roosevelt had permitted the 
sale of oil and other war materials to Japan over the pro- 
test of American public opinion. In July, 1941, President 
Roosevelt prohibited not only the sale of war materials 
to Japan but he prohibited also the sale of materials es- 
sential for her domestic economy and soon demanded that 
Japan recognize as a fixed policy the white empires in 
Asia, of which the British Empire comprised approxi- 
mately 90 % in both area and population owned by Euro- 
pean powers. 

The Neiv York Times of October 24, 1941, stated: 

Japan's raw-material shortage has been sharply 
aggravated and her industrial activities seriously dis- 
rupted by the cessation of her trade with important 
foreign countries, the Department of Commerce re- 
ported today. 

Ship movements and trade between Japan and the 
United States, the British Empire and the Nether- 
land Indies, it is pointed out, have become virtually 

The same paper stated on December 2, 1941, five days 
before the attack on Pearl Harbor, ''Japan had been cut 
off from about 75% of her normal imports as a result of 

©Sidney Rogerson, Propaganda in the 'Next War, p. 148. 



the Allied blockade." In commenting on this situation, 
one prominent non- Japanese stated, "Japan had no choice 
but to go to war or to submit to economic slavery for her 

Forrest Davis and Ernest K. Lindley, friends and biog- 
raphers of President Roosevelt, in giving an account of 
the Atlantic Conference of August, 1941, wrote : 

Churchill wished to meet the issue head-on. He 
asked the President — as the British, Australians, and 
the Dutch repeatedly had besought this government 
before — ^to join an ultimative declaration to Japan.^^ 

On September 3, 1941, the United States demanded that 
Japan accept the principle of ''non-disturbance of the 
status quo in the Pacific."^^ This committed American 
lives to securing a guaranty for British and Dutch impe- 
rial interests in the Orient. President Roosevelt was fully 
aware of the danger of attack provoked by the adminis- 
trative policies of the United States. According to the 
Roberts Report on Pearl Harbor : 

''On October 16, 1941, the commanding general, 
Hawaiian department, and the commander-in-chief 
of the fleet were advised by the War and Navy De- 
partments .... the possibility of an attack by Ja- 
pan in the Far East." 

On November 26, 1941, President Roosevelt gave an 
ultimatum to Japan demanding in part the withdrawal of 
all military forces from China, renunciation of all extra- 
territorial rights in China, and Japan's renunciation of 
her treaty of alliance with the Axis forces. 

In the Saturday Evening Post of October 10, 1942, page 
9, in an article by Lieutenant Clarence E. Dickerson en- 
titled "I Fly for Vengeance," Lieutenant Dickinson states: 

On this cruise we had sailed from Pearl Harbor 
on November 28 under absolute war orders. Vice 
Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., the commander of 

lOForrest Davis and E. K. Lindley, "How War CamB," Ladies' Home 

Journal, July, 1943. 
iiDepartment of State Bulletin, December 20, 1941, p. 538. 



the aircraft force, had given instructions that the 
secrecy of our mission was to be protected at all 
costs. We were to shoot down everything we saw 
on the sea. In that way, there could be no leak to 
the Japs. 

Mr. Churchill's speech in Parliament, January 28, 1942 
— as reported in the New York Times of that date, page 
10, — stated : 

It has been the policy of the Cabinet at almost all 
costs to avoid embroilment with Japan until we were 
sure that the United States would be engaged 

On the other hand, the probability since the Atlan- 
tic Conference at which I discussed these matters 
with President Roosevelt, that the United States, 
even if not herself attacked, would come into the war 
in the Far East and thus make the final victory assur- 
ed, seemed to allay some of these anxieties, and that 
expectation has not been falsified by the events. 

This would seem to indicate that not only did President 
Roosevelt accede to Churchill's pressure to send an ulti- 
matum to, and impose sanctions upon Japan but he also 
made a blanket commitment to bring America into the 
war even if Japan did not attack. 

Oliver Lyttelton, British Minister of Production, in an 
address in London on June 20, 1944, said approvingly : 

Japan was provoked into attacking Pearl Harbor. 
It is a travesty on history even to say that America 
was forced into the war. It is incorrect to say that 
America ever was truly neutral even before America 
came into the war on an all-out fighting basis.^- 

Mr. Arthur Sulzberger, publisher of the New York 
Times and in the forefront of those taking us into war, 
in an address at the North Atlantic Conference of the Red 
Cross on January 31, 1944 said : 

.... we did not go to war because we were at- 
tacked at Pearl Harbor. I hold rather that we were 
attacked at Pearl Harbor because we had gone to 
war — . 

i2The remark made such an uproar in American diplomatic circles 
that he apologized the next day for the statement. 


In the November 1943 issue of Fortune, a strong advo- 
cate of intervention, Sherry Mangan, in an article on the 
"State of the Nation" wrote approvingly : 

The American people were easied into the war by 
a process of discreet gradualism and manufactured 

inevitability The United States pulled the 

American people .... into the war by their coat- 
tails .... Pearl Harbor merely legalized the ac- 
complished fact. 

Admiral Harold R. Stark stated on January 3, 1946, 
before the Pearl Harbor Investigating Committee that 
American warships in the Atlantic got orders on October 
11, 1941, to destroy "German and Italian naval, land, and 
air forces encountered" and they were then "operating at 
times under direction of British officers." On January 
11, 1946, it was revealed to the same committee that Ad- 
miral Halsey in the Pacific was instructed several days 
before the Pearl Harbor attack "to sink every Japanese 
ship that they found." 

There is no question but that the President expected an 
attack at just about the time when it finally happened. It 
was expected to occur in the Far East rather than at 
Pearl Harbor. 

In February, 1942, Churchill made the following state- 
ment in the House of Commons: "When I survey and 
compute the power of the United States and its vast re- 
sources and feel that they are now in it with us ... . 
This is what I have dreamed of, aimed at, and worked for, 
and now it has come to pass." 

On February 1, 1944, President Roosevelt gave out a 
statement defining the aims for which the United States 
was fighting the war in the Pacific, stating: 

Our task in expelling the Japs from Burma, Ma- 
laya, Java and other territory is military. We rec- 
ognize that our British and Dutch brothers in arms 
are as determined to throw the Japs out of Malaya 

i3See Roberts, Report on Pearl Harbor, also John T. Flynn, Tlie Truth 
About Pearl Harbor for full account. 



and the Dutch East Indies as we are determined to 
free the Philippines. We propose to help each other, 
on the roads and waters and above them, eastward to 
these places and beyond to Tokyo. 

The Christian Century in commenting on that state- 
ment wrote: ''Millions of Americans have feared that 
one reason why our armies are fighting in the Far East 
is to restore European imperialism there. Now they 
know it.^* 

Why did Great Britain enter the conflict? According 
to Winston Churchill, when war was declared in 1939, it 
was to restore Poland from the possession of Germany 
and Russia. But according to F. A. Voigt, editor of The 
Nineteenth Century and After and close to the British 
Foreign Office as well as representative of the ruling class 
in England, writing in the September, 1943, issue : 

England fought to preserve the balance — ^for that 
reason and no other 

The commonly accepted view that Germany made 
war to dominate the world is, in our opinion, mis- 

His main purpose in going to war was to subjugate 
the European mainland and then to open up Russia 
for German colonization. 
This editorial also stated : 

If Germany changes her political complexion as 
well she may at the approach of defeat, that will be 
no reason for modifying the prospective terms of 

peace The exorbitant strength of Germany 

must be reduced and it must be kept reduced. Better 
a despotically governed Germany that is not too 
strong than a liberal Germany that is too strong. The 
peace that will end the Second World War must be 
such that the balance of power will be restored and 
will be preserved for generations to come. This must 
be the primary war aim and peace aim of Great Brit- 
ain and of the Empire. 

World War II was primarily a struggle for the preser- 
vation of the balance of power in Europe and the preser- 
vation of British and Dutch colonial possessions in Asia 
against the expansion of Japan. 

i^Christian Century February 23, 1944, p. 228. 


President Roosevelt at all times kept the American pub- 
lic uninformed as to his plans for entering the conflict. 
For example, on October 30, 1940, President Roosevelt in 
his campaign for the third term said in an address at Bos- 

And while I am talking to you fathers and mothers, 
I give you one more assurance. I have said this be- 
fore, but I shall say it again and again and again: 
your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign 

Yet within six months of this promise Mr. Roosevelt was 
secretly landing an American Army on foreign soil. An 
advance guard of an American Army was landed secretly 
in Greenland on April 9, 1941, for the express purpose of 
relieving the British garrison there. In September, 1941, 
three months before Pearl Harbor, American forces with- 
out a declaration of war destroyed two German weather 
stations in Greenland killing several Germans. These 
stations were set up to supply Nazi submarines with 
weather information to help them in the war with Great 
Britain.^^ What an outburst of rage would have come 
from this country had the situations been reversed and 
the Germans, without a declaration of war, attacked and 
killed Americans under similar conditions ! ! ! 

Another example of such policies on the part of Presi- 
dent Roosevelt was revealed in the House of Commons on 
June 16, 1944, by John McGovern, an Independent Labor- 
ite member of the British House of Commons from Glas- 
gow. The information he revealed, supported by subse- 
quent investigation, may be summarized as follows : 

President Roosevelt is said to have promised Winston 
Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty before be- 
coming Prime Minister in May, 1940, that America would 
come to the aid of Great Britain. In October, 1939, con- 
trary to the diplomatic usage of using these codes between 
heads of governments only, the courtesy of the American 
Embassy codes was extended to Winston Churchill in or- 

150. G. Villard, "The Great Deception," Christian Century, June 21, 



der that he might send cables to President Roosevelt. The 
substance of one cable was : "I am half American, and the 
natural person to work with you. It is e\adent we see eye 
to eye. Were I to become Prime Minister we could con- 
trol the world." During the winter of 1939-1940 many 
cables were exchanged between them and steps were dis- 
cussed for leading the United States into war. 

These codes were decoded by Tyler G. Kent, a code clerk 
in the American Embassy in London. The father of Tyler 
G. Kent had been in consular service for over twenty 
years. The son, Tyler G. Kent, was appointed a clerk in 
the foreign service in 1934 at the age of 22 and assigned 
to the American Embassy at Moscow. He was transferred 
to the American Embassy at London on September 21, 

1939, arriving there in October, 1939. His duties were 
to encode and decode diplomatic messages. On May 20, 

1940, Kent was dismissed from the government service 
and arrested accused of revealing diplomatic conversa- 
tion passing between President Roosevelt and Winston 
Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty, before becoming 
Prime Minister in May, 1940. The United States author- 
ities waived diplomatic immunity in the case and Tyler 
Kent was given a secret trial in a British court and sen- 
tenced to prison for seven years for revealing the secret 
messages.* Among those who secured these messages 
was one Anna WolkolT, a naturalized British subject, the 
daughter of a former Admiral in the Russian Imperial 
Na\T, and strongly anti-Communist. She was sentenced 
to prison for ten years. Also a member of the House of 
Commons, Captain A. H. M. Ramsey, in possession of 
these messages and considered dangerous by Winston 
Churchill, was detained in prison by the Minister of Home 
Security, Herbert Morrison, who had charge of the regu- 
lation and imprisonment for the duration of ''dangerous 
persons" in England. Joseph P. Kennedy, United States 
Ambassador to Great Britain at that time, in commenting 
on this case on September 6, 1944, stated that Churchill 
had agreed when the war began to supply ''exact and com- 

*He was released and returned to America in October, 1945. 


plete" information on British war plans, needs, and prep- 
arations to President Roosevelt. 

The above events took place several months before the 
Pearl Harbor attack. 

While the war psychology was sweeping the nation in 
1940, the policy of conscription was adopted as an emer- 
gency measure. The rise of conscription has an interest- 
ing story. France was the first country in modern history 
to adopt conscription as a method of raising a national 
army. In 1798, during the French Revolution, France 
adopted this method of getting men for her army after 
voluntary enlistment had broken down. After this revo- 
lution, other nations of Europe adopted such a policy as 
their method for raising a standing army. Prussia adopt- 
ed such a system in 1806, Russia in 1872, and Japan in 
1873. Before this adoption of conscription as a national 
policy by modern nations, local units of government had 
used it as a means of getting men for the local militia 
when an insufficient number volunteered. All major wars 
of modern history have resorted to the drafting of men. 
Conscription is both democratic and totalitarian — demo- 
cratic as slavery is democratic in that it falls on all alike, 
totalitarian in that it treats the individual as a tool of 
the state. 

The first consideration of conscription as a national pol- 
icy in America was in connection with the War of 1812. 
Men were slow to volunteer. Plans were made to invade 
Canada, but there was no popular support of such plans. 
During that war the principal opposition to conscription 
was from the New England States. Josiah Quincy, the 
outstanding Federalist from Massachusetts in 1813, said: 
*This war, the measure which preceded it and the mode 
of carrying it on, are all undeniably southern and western 
policy, not the policy of the commercial states."^^ This 
opposition was most vigorous against every effort of the 
government to raise troops for the American cause. Fin- 
ally as a last resort, after all else had failed, the govern- 
ment turned to the draft as a means of securing an army 

i6Charles A. Beard, The Rise of American Civilization. Vol. I, p. 420. 



of sufficient size. The response from the opposition was 
spontaneous. Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, who was 
then a young member of the House of Representatives, 
was their principal spokesman. Webster's speech was so 
stinging in his abuse of the proposed draft and of the ad- 
ministration that its publication was suppressed for al- 
most a hundred years. An excerpt from Webster's speech 
reads : 

The majority is trying to demonstrate that the gov- 
ernment possesses over us a power more tyrannical, 
more dangerous, more allied to blood and murder, 
more full of every form of mischief, more pi*oductive 
of every form and degree of misery than has been 
exercised by any civilized government, with a single 
exception, in modern times. ^' 

He based his protest on the fact that the conscripts were 
to fight battles of invasion and that the people were not of 
a temper to submit to conscription. He also vaguely hint- 
ed that such a policy might end in dissolving the Union. 
Due to this great amount of opposition, conscription was 
not adopted in the War of 1812. 

In our war with Mexico, conscription was not consider- 
ed, but desertion from the regular forces was such a prob- 
lem that a reward of $30 was offered for the arrest and 
delivery of a deserter. Descriptions of deserters were 
printed exclusively by the National Police Gazette by or- 
der of the Adjutant General of the United States Army, 
and the government subscriptions practically subsidized 
the magazine during that period. 

The first Draft Act in the United States was passed by 
the Confederate Congress during the Civil War in April 
1862 — nearly a year before the Union Congress adopted 
compulsory military service. President Jefferson Davis 
knew from his experience as an army man and as a form- 
er Secretary of War that only by conscription could he 
raise an army. The law declared able-bodied white males 
between the ages of 18 and 35 to be subject to the draft. 
In 1863 with the war going against the South, the Con- 

^TIMd, p. 422. 



federate Congress extended the age to 45. Those owning 
ten slaves — and later twenty slaves — were exempt. Dur- 
ing the last six months of the war, due to local resistance, 
conscription in the Confederacy broke down entirely. 

Many leaders in the Confederacy were opposed to con- 
scription. Governor J. E. Brown of Georgia was among 
those in active opposition. General Stonewall Jackson 
was obliged to use armed forces in suppressing an upris- 
ing among the men in the valleys of the Blue Ridge Moun- 
tains. In the hill country of North Carolina, Georgia, 
Alabama, and Mississippi the opposition was strong. The 
governor of Florida wrote Jefferson Davis that he had 
been unable to enforce the conscription act satisfactorily.^* 

President Lincoln ordered a draft law drawn up in 
August, 1862, but the bill did not pass both Houses of 
Congress until May 3, 1863. The following July, when 
the Federal Government attempted to enforce the draft, 
rioting broke out in New York, Massachusetts, Pennsyl- 
vania, Wisconsin, and other sections of the country. Mobs 
set fire to the arsenal in Boston, and in New York crowds 
attacked the state armory, killing the 40 soldiers who 
guarded it. For three days and nights mobs roamed the 
city, burning, looting, and murdering innocent citizens, 
and not until troops were brought from the front were the 
riots suppressed. The governor of New York demanded 
suspension of the draft until its constitutionality could be 
determined by the courts. The 1863 Democratic conven- 
tions of both New York and Ohio condemned the draft as 
unconstitutional. Among the leaders of the opposition 
was Congressman Vallandigham of Ohio, who was brand- 
ed a "Copperhead'' by President Lincoln, tried by a mili- 
tary commission, imprisoned, and later banished. 

The Federal Government, during the Civil War, used 
the draft as a club to force individual states to produce 
their quota of troops under the volunteer system. The 
states were divided into federal congressional districts 
and subdivided into districts according to size and popu- 

isjames Ford Rhodes, History of the United States, 1850-1877, Vol. 
V, Chapter 28. 



lation. When the President issued a call for troops and 
sufficient volunteers did not respond, draft officers went 
from house to house enlisting men of draft age, by force 
if necessary. A draftee could escape service by paying 
$300, or hiring a substitute to take his place. 

Conscription met with so much opposition that it was 
not considered again until this nation entered the first 
World War. In that first World War, "Selective Service", 
as the draft act was then called, was adopted about a 
month after a "state of war" with Germany was proclaim- 
ed by Congress. This draft became a law May 18, 1917. 
Of all those who supported the draft, it remained for Gov- 
ernor Bickett of North Carolina to proclaim that it was 
divinely ordained. To meet the opposition in his state, 
he undertook to prove that the draft was of divine inspira- 
tion, and that those who fought against it were fighting 
against God. He found that the first selective service law 
was given by God to Moses. Under this law, according to 
Governor Bickett, Moses was directed to register for mili- 
tary service every male person in Israel 20 years old and 
upwards who was physically fit to go to war. 

"Of course there are some differences in details, but 
the principle of the present selective draft law is identical 
with the law given to Moses by Jehovah in the Wilderness 
of Sinai," proclaimed the Governor of North Carolina. 
With the close of World War I, the draft likewise came 
to a close. 

The War Department has been advocating since 1918 
conscription as the permanent method of raising an army. 
In 1920, the Senate passed such a bill only to be defeated 
in the House of Representatives. Senator John Sharpe 
WiUiams of Mississippi, in opposing such a policy in the 
Senate, said on March 29, 1918, "A nation which lives in 
peace time under universal military compulsory service 
is a nation of slaves." 

With the growth of the peace sentiment in the 1920's 
these efforts to establish conscription as a permanent pol- 
icy were not successful. 

The Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy, 
in 1926, created a Joint Army and Navy Selective Service 



Committee. This committee was composed of representa- 
tives of the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the 
Navy, and a small group of officers who had been in the 
Selective Service Administration during the World War I. 
This committee carried on a propaganda for a period of 
14 years advocating a peacetime draft system. They put 
out various studies and publications through their office 
of Public Relations. 

The Military Training Camps Association of the United 
States with headquarters in Chicago and New York, in 
collaboration with the War Department, sponsored the 
Selective Training Service Act of 1940. This organization 
may be considered the Public Relations Committee of the 
War Department. 

The active drive for the conscription law was inaugu- 
rated at the Harvard Club in New York City on May 22, 
1940.^^ Among those present at this meeting were Julius 
Adler of the New York Times, Grenville Clark, Robert P. 
Patterson, Henry L. Stimson, and Elihu Root, Jr. Many 
of the group were for immediate entrance into the war. 

On May 23, 1940, the same club passed a resolution for 
''aid to the allies short of war." On June 3, 1940, the club 
put on a campaign to raise $250,000 for propaganda pur- 
poses to be used by the newly-formed "Committee to De- 
fend America by Aiding the Allies" directed by William 
Allen White. Over 600 local chapters were soon establish- 
ed throughout the country. Branch headquarters were 
established at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and at Chi- 
cago. Money was plentiful with them. One objective 
of some in this organization was to secure conscription 
for the purpose of sending another American Expedition- 
ary Force to Europe. 

On June 10, 1940, an advertisement, ''Stop Hitler Now", 
prepared by Robert Emmet Sherwood, playwright, ap- 
peared in 18 leading newspapers at a cost of approximate- 
ly $25,000. This was paid for by the "Committee to De- 

Louis Post-Dispatch, Sept. 22, 1940, gives full account. 
^^Information furnished by "The Committee to Defend America by 
Aiding the Allies." 



fend America by Aiding the Allies," with funds furnished 
by a group of financial and industrial leaders including 
the following recent converts to democracy: Guaranty 
Trust Company, with branches in Antwerp, Brussels, Liv- 
erpool, Paris and London; Kuhn, Loeb and Company, 
international banking ; J. P. Morgan and Company, inter- 
locking with banks in London and Paris ; Lehman Broth- 
ers, international banking ; Cornelius D. Whitney ; Thom- 
as W. Lamont; Mrs. Daniel Guggenheim; Mrs. H. P. 
Davison; Mrs. Averill Harriman; and Henry Luce.^^ 
Many large contributions came from those connected with 
the broadcasting companies and the motion picture indus- 
try such as Douglas Fairbanks, J. D. Levy, Maxwell An- 
derson, Robert Sherwood, Alfred Lunt, and Paul Muni. 

The first voice to speak out openly for conscription was 
the New York Times on June 7, 1940. It advocated "com- 
pulsory military training" urging that Congress "should 
immediately prepare and pass a bill providing for it." The 
chief campaigner for the idea was Colonel Julius Ochs 
Adler of the New York Times. He was civilian aide to 
the Secretary of War. Adler and others through the 
Times financed the campaign for the adoption of such a 
policy. They used the psychology of emergency to secure 
its adoption. 

On June 18, 1940, President Roosevelt stated he would 
soon "recommend to Congress a comprehensive program 
for some form of universal compulsory government ser- 
vice for the country's youth." Two political opponents of 
the President were selected by the Military Training 
Camps Association to sponsor the measure prepared by 
Grenville Clark. On June 20, 1940, Senator Burke (lame 
duck anti-New Deal Democrat) of Nebraska introduced 
in the Senate a bill providing for "Selective compulsory 
military training and service." The next day, June 21, 
Representative J. M. Wadsworth (Republican) of New 
York introduced an identical bill in the House. Although 
neither of the major parties incorporated such a proposal 
in its platform of 1940, Mr. Wilkie joined President 

Congressional Record, U. S. Senate, July 11, 1940, pages 9497-9500. 


Roosevelt in urging its passage and Congress abdicated 
to the voice of party authority. The law was signed by 
President Roosevelt on September 16, 1940, with the first 
peacetime registration held on the following October 16, 
Indicative of the economic group initiating this program, 
the bill in its original form provided for a compensation 
of $5 per month for the drafted men. To get the measure 
more acceptable the compensation was raised to $21.00 
per month and later increased to $50 per month to lessen 
the unrest among the draftees. 

In the summer of 1941 the War Department sought the 
removal of restrictions in the Selective Service Act of 
1940 limiting the army service to one year, with a maxi- 
mum of 900,000 selectees in training at any given time 
and the restriction confining this army to service on the 
Western Hemisphere. President Roosevelt asked Con- 
gress to extend indefinitely the length of service of the 
drafted men, and to remove the 900,000 limitation as to 
the number of men in training. He did not ask for a re- 
moval of the Western Hemisphere limitation as that would 
arouse more opposition, possibly resulting in a defeat for 
the administration. By a vote of 45 to 30 the Senate 
extended the term of trainees for 18 months, and the 
House of Representatives on August 12, 1941, did like- 
wise by a vote of only 203 to 202. In order to carry this 
measure the administration resorted to every pressure 
tactic known to politics, including threats to remove W, 
P. A. projects from districts of opposition Congressmen, 
and not to allow party funds in the next election to those 
who failed to support the measure. 

The American Legion at its 1941 convention, due to 
pressure from Washington, went on record favoring uni- 
versal compulsory military service as a permanent policy. 
British leaders were desirous of and advocating an Amer- 
ican Expeditionary Force for the purpose of invading the 
continent of Europe. 

On December 4, 1941, the Washington Times-Herald 
and the Chicago Tribune published Roosevelt's Secret War 
Plan. This plan showed that on July 9, 1941, President 
Roosevelt had asked Secretary of War Stimson to have 



the Army and Navy Joint Board submit plans necessary 
for the military defeat of Germany. On September 11, 
1941, this report was made to the President. It called for 
an American Expeditionary Force of 5,000,000 men and 
a total armed force of over 10,000,000 men to be used in 
the two oceans and three continents — Europe, Africa, and 
Asia.22 There was a great opposition against this through- 
out the country. It seemed as if public opinion would not 
follow President Roosevelt further. But on December 7, 
1941, Japan, in reply to certain demands made by the 
President on November 26, attacked Pearl Harbor.^^ This 
incident was most fortunate for President Roosevelt as 
this apparently unprovoked attack united the country be- 
hind him in precipitating our full entrance into the con- 

^2Wa8hington Times-Herald, December 4, 1941, gives full account. 

23Jeaniiette Rankin, "Some Questions About Pearl Harbor." Copies 
of this document can be secured from the National Council for 
the Prevention of War, 1013 Eighteenth Street, Washington, D. C. 

Brown, H. Runham, "W^hy Hitler?" 

Cornell, Julien, TJie Conscientious Objector and the Law 
Chamberlin, William Henry, The Enigma of Russia 
Davis, Forrest, How War Came 

Davis, Forrest, "What Really Happened at Teheran," Saturday Eve- 
ning Post, May 13 and 20, 1944 

Department of State Publication, Peace and War, U. S. Foreign 
Policy, 1931-1941 

Flynn, John T., "The Truth About Pearl Harbor" 

High, Stanley, "The Church Unmilitant", New Republic, June 22, 1942 

Howard, Harry Paxton, America's Role in Asia 

Hoover, Herbert, America's First Crusade 

Hitler, Adolph, Mein Kampf 

Johnson, Walter, The Fight Against Isolation 

Lin Yutang, Between Tears and Laughter 

Mitchell, Kate L., India Without Fable 

Neumann, William L., ''The Genesis of Pearl Harbor'' 

Rogerson, Sidney, Propaganda in the Next War 

Roberts, Justice Owen J. et al. Report on Pearl Harbor 

Rankin, Jeannette, "Some Questions About Pearl Harbor" 

Villard, 0. G., "The Great Deception", Christian Century, June 21, 


Not By Might 

This book addresses a moving appeal to reason and right religion as the sole W(j 
now left open to this country and the world. The thesis of the book is that tli 
way that Jesus taught and lived is practical now for the individual and for o 
country. Nothing short of a straightforward avowal of Christian principles oi 
conduct on the part of America and its individuals can break the deadlock, fi 
popular imagination, and begin negotiations all over again on a higher level Clot 
227 pages. $2.50. 


The Power of Non-Violence 

A graduate of Harvard Law School and active in labor and industrial relations worl 
Richard Gregg spent several years in India studying Gandhi's methods. This boo 
origmally published by Lippincott, has run through several printings, and ti 
present edition was revised during World War II. Gregg marshals the facts < 
history, psychology, and practical experience to show the effectiveness of noi 
violent methods everywhere and in every area of life. Cloth, 252 pages. $1.50. 


The New Testament Basis 

An examination of the positive imperative of the Christian ethic, which command 
that every valid means must be used to set wrongs right and build human relation 
on a new foundation, and yet forbids the use of such means as will by their ver 
nature stultify the end in view, from which is derived the Christian pacifist positidi 
on war and violence. Dr. Macgregor, Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism a 
Glasgow University, is the outstanding critic of Reinhold Niebuhr's position today 
Paper, 156 pages. $ .50. 


2929 Broadwoy New York 25, N. Y.